Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL

(by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

TOWCESTER RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (ABTHORPE RATING) BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Overseas Sales (Restrictions)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now remove the restrictions on the sale of second-hand British ships to foreign countries.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): No, Sir. A wide measure of freedom is allowed to shipowners to sell their ships abroad, but, for reasons of security and national defence, I cannot abolish all restrictions on the transfer of ships to overseas buyers.

Mr. Erroll: I wonder if my right hon. Friend would nevertheless look at the present restrictions to see if they could be relaxed further?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do constantly, andI have discussions with the Chamber of Shipping from time to time. I am satisfied that at the moment they are not a serious hindrance to shipping industry but are a national value.

Mr. Awbery: The sale of these obsolete ships to countries not conforming to the

international code is creating serious competition between them and ourselves, so will the right hon. Gentleman lay down conditions that obsolete ships sold shall be broken up? Or will he confine their sale to those countries conforming to the regulations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That shows a further reason why there should be some ultimate control in the Minister's hands. If the hon. Gentleman cares to talk to me afterwards, I will give him details about the relatively few ships that have been transferred in recent years.

Sir L. Ropner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the view implied by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) is not shared by any section of the Mercantile Marine, including the trade unions?

Oil Separators and Sludge Tanks

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now take steps to appoint a day after which no tanker or ship burning oil will be allowed into any United Kingdom port unless equipped with an oil separator and sludge tank.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In their Report the Committee on the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil showed that oily-water separators were not required in tankers and recommended that this apparatus should be fitted only in those United Kingdom registered dry-cargo ships which use tanks alternately for oil fuel and water ballast. Legislation would be required to give effect to this recommendation and others made by the Committee and, as I informed the House on 16th December last, the necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after the international conference on oil pollution which is to take place next April.

Mr. Stokes: While I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, it really is not sufficient. Will he give an undertaking that, following the international conference, he will not delay matters, that he will take the necessary steps, including the installation of sludge tanks, which is absolutely essential, and will not exclude from his consideration the possibility of imposing double port dues on any ships


which do not conform to the regulations? Will he also find some way of rewarding the third engineers who see that the sludge is emptied in port and not on the high seas?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman had sufficient experience of international conferences to know that it would be unwise to say in advance what measures one proposed to take against shipping belonging to countries which one had invited to the conference.

Sir T. Moore: While I applaud the motives of the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), how does he think he will get his petrol if his request is granted? His car will run no longer.

Mr. Stokes: That has nothing to do with it. Will the Minister assure me that he will bear in mind that what really matters is that the Gulf Stream flows in our direction and that nothing that he can do will make it flow the other way, and that whatever the international conference may decide, he will never get our beaches clean unless he takes prompt and energetic measures about it, quite apart from any international conference?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Detained Persons, London Airport (Expenses)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the total collected in 1953 in respect of chargesmade to cover expenses of foreigners detained at London Airport at the request of the immigration officer, pending their enforced return to the countries from which they came; and what was the number of foreigners involved.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In 1953, 28 foreigners were held in detention quarters at London Airport before being flown out of the country. Twelve different airlines were concerned with these detentions, and I regret that I do not know how much they collected.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what charges are made by his Department to airline companies using the detention block for accommodating passengers

arriving at London Airport who are ordered to leave the country.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Charges are made by my Department to airline companies at the rate of 15s. per night per passenger for the use of the accommodation in the detention block at London Airport. If, exceptionally, my Department provides an escort or guard at the request of the immigration officer, the normal charge of 8s. per hour is made to the airline company.

Helicopters

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the progress being made in the production of the jet-propelled helicopter, the Rotodyne, by Fairey Aviation Company, what preparations are being made in London and other large towns for helicopter landing stations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Until we know more about the requirements of future helicopters, detailed preparation of air-stops cannot take place, but 46 local authorities have been given all existing information on the selection of sites.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, unless there is foresight and enterprise in London, the provincial authorities are hamstrung by not knowing what is to happen in London? Cannot there be some decision on this very important matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no lack of foresight. It is important to await the development of the twin-engine helicopter to know what sort of landing ground is necessary. The L.C.C. has agreed with the occasional experimental helicopter landings on the South Bank for some years, but a more permanent site must await development of the twin-engine helicopter, and I look with confidence to the Bristol 173, which will begin its trials this summer.

Mr. Beswick: Can the right hon. Gentleman name any date when this machine named in the Question is likely to be flying?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it is a most interesting and will, I hope, prove a very valuable machine, but it will be some years before it is in commercial operation.

Airport Facilities, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation which are the alternative aerodromes for civil aircraft wishing to land in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne area when Woolsington Airport is unserviceable.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The nearest aerodrome available for civil use, and with a range of facilities corresponding to those at Woolsington, is Edinburgh (Turn-house). Limited facilities are, however, available at WestHartlepool and, in emergency, civil aircraft may be diverted to the R.A.F. aerodrome at Acklington.

Air Freight Services

Mr. Lindgren: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how far it is the policy of his Department to permit the Air Corporations to offer charter services on any route.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have previously informed the House, the chairmen of the Air Corporations have undertaken not to maintain aircraft specifically for charter work, which has always been recognised as the domain of the independent companies and only incidental to the main business of the Corporations as operators of scheduled services. Subject to the limitations which this principle implies, the Corporations are free to tender for charter work including ad hoc trooping operations. The Corporation chairmen recently informed me that they did not understand that charter work included trooping, but I see no reason to modify long established Government policy in this respect.

Mr. Lindgren: If that is so, can the Minister say why he approved, and the Corporation have ordered, special aircraft for freight traffic?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When the Corporation applied to me, I think in February, 1953, for permission to buy five Britannias, I made it plain in the correspondence from my Department to them that this was on the basis that they realised that they had a commercial use in mind for the aircraft, and that all applications for new freight routes would have to go to the A.T.A.C.

Mr. Lindgren: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how special freight aircraft which cost £800,000 apiece can be used on other than charter or freight services?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is for the Corporation to make up their minds on commercial considerations. I never left them in any doubt as to the position, which is precisely the same as it was under the Socialist Administration, when all trooping contracts were placed by competitive tender, a thing that could not have been done had these been regarded as scheduled operations.

Mr. Callaghan: When B.O.A.C. told the right hon. Gentleman about their intention to purchase these Britannia aircraft, did they indicate where they hoped to use them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: To the best of my recollection they said that they proposed to buy five Britannias, and I am not sure whether they said they had in mind further operations in the Atlantic or not; but I know that in my letter to them I made it quite plain that they would have to apply to the A.T.A.C. like anybody else for any freight route other than their existing one to Singapore.

Mr. Lindgren: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what detailed programmes of new services have been submitted to him by independent air transport companies.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The detailed programmes of independent air transport companies for new air services take the form of applications to the Air Transport Advisory Council which are advertised in the national Press.

Mr. Lindgren: In view of that answer, can the Minister say what was the implication behind thestatement made to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), in answer to a supplementary question last week, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to consider programmes submitted to him by a charter company?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have made it perfectly plain that I do not consider these applications unless and until they are recommended to me for provisional approval by the A.T.A.C. There is a later Question on the Order Paper dealing


with internal services, but I am not sure whether or not it will be reached. From the early days, when consideration has been given to the possibility of handing over internal routes to private operators in the United Kingdom, I have been prepared to consider that in advance of any such applications, because that was outside the purview of the A.T.A.C. With regard to A.T.A.C. applications, I have no advance knowledge of any application.

Mr. Beswick: The Minister made a specific reference to a detailed programme from this particular company. Will he say why he is prepared to accept a detailed programme from this company before it is submitted to the Air Transport Advisory Council?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are three stages in this operation, first, the approach to A.T.A.C.; secondly, their recommendation to me together with backing from the country to which they are to go, and, thirdly, after all that, they come back with detailed plans for the route already granted to them, and I look at safety and other angles as well as, once again, at the provisional recommendation.

Mr. Lindgren: Does the Minister deny that through his Department promises have been given to charter companies on specific routes?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that there has been something underhand in my conduct of this business, then I hope that he will prevail on his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench to put down a Motion on the Order Paper for the reduction of my salary.

Mr. Lindgren: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under what circumstances he is consulted before new aircraft are purchased by the Air Corporations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am in constant touch with the chairmen of both Corporations at all stages during the development of new types of aircraft. They seek my approval before placing production orders for aircraft to be used in their operational fleets.

Mr. Lindgren: In view of that answer, can the Minister say why he approved the purchase of the five Britannias while, at the same time, denying the Corporation the operational use for them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When they asked me if they could buy five Britannias I said, "Yes, provided (1) you are satisfied that there is a commercial use for them, and (2) you realise that you will have to go to the A.T.A.C. for permission to operate on any new freight route.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is it not a fact that the Minister prevented the commercial use of these planes which he had authorised by giving the contract to Air-work and denying it to B.O.A.C.?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That, again, is wholly wrong. The chairman of the Corporation agreed with me to hold off for one year.

Mr. Davies: But under pressure.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: He gave me an undertaking that they would hold off for one year. I think that the sooner we have the debate the more interesting and the more surprising it will be from all points of view. The Corporation gave me an undertaking to hold off for one year until last July, since when they have been as free as anybody else. They announced in a Press statementin February last their intention to apply for a freight route. They have not done so, though there have been many months since when they were entirely free to make application.

Mr. H. Morrison: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he sanctioned the Britannia aircraft on the understanding that there would be no commercial use for them? Will he say whether the chairman voluntarily offered the 12 months'standstill arrangement or whether the right hon. Gentleman asked them to agree to that standstill arrangement? Finally, will he take it from me that there is a lot to be said, not merely for a reduction of his salary—[Hon. Members: "Question."] Hon. Members do not understand Parliamentary business. I am asking the Minister. Will he take it from me that there is a lot to be said, in view of his general conduct regarding the backing up of private interests as against public interests, not merely for a reduction in his salary, but for its complete abolition?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think I would be most unwise to take anything of any kind from the right hon. Gentleman, except to follow scrupulously the policy of the


Labour Government in regard to air trooping. In this case, I left it to the commercial discretion of a socialised industry set up by the party opposite to decide whether, in the light of my warning conveyed in correspondence, they wished to go ahead with the purchase of the Britannias. As to their undertaking to hold back for one year, I announced it at the time in this House. I have never disguised anything at all. I asked them to do it—of course they did not volunteer—and they agreed.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Minister say, in view of the fact that Sir Miles Thomas has said that he has received no encouragement since the end of the 12 months'period to apply for a licence, and as this was reproduced in the public Press last week, whether that implies or is meant to imply that the Minister has used some persuasion upon him to make him refrain from applying for a licence?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is wholly untrue. I have used no such persuasion of any kind. If it would be improper for me to try to encourage a private operator to apply for a particular route, it would be equally improper for me to do the same in the case of the Corporation.

Mr. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. Are we now to understand, Mr. Speaker, that if at Question time we preface a statement, whether party political or otherwise, with the words, "Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me," that automatically becomes a question?

Mr. Speaker: The question to which the hon. Member refers is interrogative. The answer can always be "No."

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent it is within the policy of his Department to consider new proposals of air services from private firms before such proposals have been submitted to the Air Transport Advisory Council.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When considering the United Kingdom internal network, I was prepared to consider such schemes so as to help the United Kingdom taxpayer. Apart from this the answer is "None, Sir."

Mr. Beswick: The Minister made a specific statement in the House to the effect that he was prepared to consider

a detailed programme from this firm. Does that mean that he is prepared to consider it before it is agreed with the Air Transport Council, and, if not, will he say since when the Air Transport Advisory Council has been empowered to consider any agreement which involves not only a new route, but price-fixing on other routes?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the sooner we start up a school of rudimentary facts on air transport, the more helpful it will be for everybody. The detailed technical examination follows after and not before the approval by the A.T.A.C.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister trying to tell me that in the directive to the Air Transport Advisory Council there is any statement which says that they can consider an agreement which compels the Corporation to maintain a price rate higher than that which the Corporation would otherwise maintain?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is quite another matter; it does not arise in the least out of this.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the result of the consultations he had with the chairman of British Overseas Airways Corporation in regard to the operation of an all-freight service by Airwork on the North Atlantic route; and what undertakings he received from the former in regard thereto.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have had a number of consultations with the chairman of B.O.A.C. and the Chairman of Airwork. The two chairmen told me that they would consider the possibilities of co-operation in the national interest in the development of their respective North Atlantic services. This is the only undertaking I have received.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that during these consultations he has in no way exercised influence, persuasion or pressure on B.O.A.C. to get them to agree that they will not engage in the all-freight North Atlantic service, and that he has not in any way given preference to Airwork in that respect?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can give that complete assurance as from July, 1953.


in regard to the persuasion of the Corporation, and absolutely for all time in regard to Airwork.

Dr. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend tell me to what extent these two firms are likely to provide services which are competitive with each other?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it is true to say that they are complementary rather thancompetitive. The primary function of B.O.A.C., as has been repeatedly said by Lord Pakenham and previous Ministers, is to develop passenger and mail services. I regard the field of freight as being primarily the function of private operators.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the Minister tell us why he thinks that freight is the private right of private air companies? Can I ask him, further, whether the agreement between the Corporation and the private enterprise firm to co-operate in the national interest means that they are going to keep out of each other's way on various routes, and are entering into an agreement of that sort?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I never referred to the question of rights. No one has any rights in the matter, except the right of application to the A.T.A.C. I am at a loss to understand why hon. Members opposite are so disturbed by some new vigour being introduced into air operations.

Sir T. Moore: As it is apparent that further information may be required on this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what assurances have been given to Air-work in regard to their exclusive operation of an all-freight service on the North Atlantic route.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under what procedure the House has been informed of the proposed agreement, embodying new principles of policy, between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and Airwork Limited.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know of no proposed agreement between British Overseas Airways Corporation and Airwork

Limited which embodies new principles of policy on which the House should be informed. I asked the chairmen to explore together the possibility of a working arrangement, but any agreement reached between these airlines would be confined to co-operation in commercial matters within the framework of the Government's air transport policy as already disclosed to Parliament.

Mr. Beswick: If there has been no pressure and if, in this case, there is not even a tacit understanding—and all that has happened is that the Minister has asked the chairman of the Corporation to explore the possibilities together with the chairman of the private company—will the Minister be good enough to tell the House why it is that in this agreement all the concessions are made by the public Corporation? What advantage is to follow to the public Corporation? [Hon. Members: "How do you know?"] The Minister gave us details last week. Will he tell his hon. Friends whether it is true that all the concessions are to be made by the public Corporation? Cart he say what incentive or motivation has been given to the Corporation to make all these concessions, voluntarily, to a private company?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a very long supplementary question, based on a complete misunderstanding. No agreement has been reached. I have heard nothing from either side that agreement has been reached. If the hon. Member will refer tothe statement I made last week, he will see that it deals with quite another matter.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will do nothing that might inhibit in any way the legitimate development of private enterprise charter air companies?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated assent.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Minister having given the assurance—by a nod—that he will give special regard—[Hon. Members: "No."] Yes. that was the question—to the interests of private enterprise, may I ask the Minister whether it is not his duty, among others, to see that there is reasonable and equitable fair play between public and other interests?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have often heard the right hon. Gentleman twist something


rather quickly, but never quite so fast as that. My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that I would do nothing to inhibit the development of private enterprise. He did not ask for an assurance that I would give it special protection.

Mr. Shinwell: Since the right hon. Gentleman has now reached the end of his Questions, may I ask him whether he regards his responsibilities as being concerned with public interest, or does he disclose in his administration a bias in favour of private enterprise?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's intervention is in the field of private enterprise on his front bench, and not on behalf of the Corporation. I consider my duty to be to get private enterprise and the Corporations to work together for the goodof the people who really matter—the travelling public.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have wasted too much time on this matter.

Hon Members: No.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In my opinion this is a big subject, which ought to be raised on a Supply Day. We cannot deal with it at Question time, by Question and answer.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference, so that we may be guided in the future, if you will indicate which of our Questions you consider were a waste of time in relation to this subject?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has no right to put words into my mouth. I never suggested that it was any waste of time. What I said was that the House had been a long time on these Questions. If I inadvertently used the word "waste"I did not apply it to any particular Member or Question. There was probably a misunderstanding about that. I suggested that, in the interests of the House and the elucidation of the Question which hon. Members are discussing, the time of the House would be better employed on a debate on the Estimates and not in Questions.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of your statement that the House would employ

its time better in a debate on a Supply Day, may I be allowed to ask the Leader of the House whether he will grant time for a debate on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: The allocation of subjects on a Supply Day is in the hands of the Opposition.

Cabotage Routes (Fares)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the policy of his Department permits British Overseas Airways Corporation to reduce its fares on cabotage routes.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As fares on cabotage routes must be fixed in relation to fares on international routes, reductions are subject to my approval.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister, therefore, give an assurance to the House that if B.O.A.C. wishes to reduce its fares on these routes he will not object?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can give no such assurance. There has been a tacit understanding, accepted by Ministers and the Corporations—which is a much more satisfactory way of dealing with these matters than by mandatory action—that cabotage fares will be subject to Ministerial approval. I must see their application before I can give any answer.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister now telling the House that there is a tacit understanding, to be enforced by him, that B.O.A.C. cannot reduce its fares even if commercial considerations so dictate?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member was once a Parliamentary Secretary of my Department. Since the passing of the Act the Minister has always had the final word in regard to cabotage fares, by a tacit agreement between himself and the chairmen of the Corporations.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Can my right hon. Friend say where hon. Members opposite are briefed by B.O.A.C, so that we can all attend?

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that our information and briefing are much less than those of the commercial television interests?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Accidents

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many fatal road accidents there were per 10,000 vehicles in 1930, 1938 and 1952.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The number of fatal road accidents per 10,000 mechanically-propelled road vehicles is: in 1930, 32; 1938, 22.5; 1952, 9.6.

Mr. Erroll: Will my hon. Friend ensure that these favourable figures are given equal publicity to the unfavourable figures?

Mr. Molson: We give the figures with complete objectivity and draw attention at the same time to those features that are favourable as well as to those that are unfavourable.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviationif he will state for the latest year for which both figures are available, the total number of road accidents and the number of these accidents in which, in the opinion of the police, dogs in the carriageway were re garded as a contributory factor.

Mr. Molson: In 1952 there were 171,757 personal injury accidents of which 2,596 were attributed primarily to dogs in the carriageway.

Sir H. Williams: Did my hon. Friend hear a statement recently by a Member of the Opposition that dogs are responsible for one in six road accidents?

Mr. Molson: I believe the correct figure is one in 70.

Mr. Peter Freeman: As it is estimated that in only one-tenth of the cases do the names and addresses of owners appear on the collars of dogs, will the hon. Gentleman, in order to avoid some of these accidents, consult the Home Secretary with a view to having the names and addresses of owners put on the collars of all dogs in future? Could there not be a check to ensure that this is done before new licences are granted?

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when

"Road Accidents 1952"will be published; and if he will present this as a Parliamentary Paper.

Mr. Molson: I understand that "Road Accidents 1952" will be published next week. My right hon. Friend does not propose to present it as a Parliamentary Paper, but will make it available at the Vote Office.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the fact that in the past four years there have been 1,275 accidents, 22 of them fatal, on the 863 miles of the A34 road passing through Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, he will, as highway authority, consult with the two local authorities about special measures to reduce accidents on this road.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There has been frequent consultation with the two local authorities, and my officers will maintain close touch with them about measures to reduce accidents on this road. Some measures have already been taken, and others are under consideration.

Mr. Swingler: These actions not having been sufficient to produce results, is the Minister aware that the only solution is a by-pass road round Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent? In the meantime, will he take steps to obtain concerted police and safety action on this road more urgently than heretofore? That is the only way to reduce the dangers on this "road of death" as the "Staffordshire Sentinel" called it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The police there, as elsewhere, have many difficulties. I have been looking carefully into this matter and I will gladly discuss the matter with all hon. Members interested, if they care to arrange it.

Forth Bridge

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) the present estimated cost of the projectedroad bridge over the Forth; how long its most speedy construction would take; and to what extent the construction could be proceeded less speedily with any economy; and

(2) the capital expenditure necessary to be estimated for each year from the first onwards for the construction of the projected Forth road bridge.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am advised that the bridge and its approaches as originally planned would cost about £13½ million, that they would take at least six years to construct and that no appreciable economy would result from a slower rate of construction. No reliable estimate could be given of the expenditure in each separate year until plans had been prepared in greater detail.

Mr. Woodborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his previous replies have created the impression that he has finally decided against the building of a bridge? On the assumption that that is a mistake, may I ask whether he is aware that the joint board have now produced a scheme which would give a modified plan reducing the capital cost to about £9 million, and that the expenditure per year, increasing from the first year, would begin at only about £200,000? Does not the Minister consider it to be desirable to make steady progress towards the eventual building of the bridge rather than to create the impression that he has decided against it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What I am concerned about is to improve as soon as possible the facilities across the Forth for the people who need them today. Because of that I have been anxious that the Commission should get on with improving the ferry services without a feeling that there might be a bridge within the next few years. I have felt obliged to say that I could not put the bridge in the immediate programme. I have not ruled it out. I am constantly looking at the matter in the light of the situation as conditions change and develop.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgency of getting some improvement of some sort before either the bridge can be completely built or an improved ferry introduced? Some expediency is urgently called for within the next 18 months.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We shall have some news in the next month, because I expect that the report on Sir Bruce White's proposal will be with me in March.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the very bad reception which the Minister's recent proposals for road improvement in Scotland and elsewhere received, would not the

right hon. Gentleman repent somewhat and let us get on with at least the first two or three years' work on the bridge? Does not he realise that any improvement in the ferry will not placate Scottish people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Such reception as I have received compares very favourably with what would happen if those in the Labour Government who promised an ambitious programme and withdrew it within nine months ever care to remind the public of what they said.

West Cumberland Trunk Road

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will put into operation the plan for a West Cumberland trunk road in view of the industrial needs of the area.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I regret that I cannot say when it will be possible to fit this very expensive scheme into the programme.

Mr. Peart: Does the Minister realise that there has been tremendous industrial development in this area since the war and that there is now a very important atomic energy establishment there, and that the road is very vitally needed? Will he reconsider the matter and give it a measure of high priority?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly look at the last point made by the hon. Gentleman in his supplementary question, but the figures submitted to me show that the number of vehicles likely to use the road is only 230 per hour and the cost would be £2,750,000, and I could not possibly agree to that.

Mr. Peart: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that at the moment road communications in this industrial area are extremely bad and that the road is urgently needed? Will he give the matter sympathetic consideration?

New Road, Durham

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether there has yet been any agreement reached between the Durham County Council and the Durham City Council on the question of the new road through Durham.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not as far as I know, Sir.

Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dangerous situation in the City of Durham at the moment because of the increased traffic and the need for the new road? Is he aware that in 1937 therewas an agreed scheme? What has become of it? If no agreement is reached between the two authorities in the near future, will the right hon. Gentleman himself suggest a scheme?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will have a look at the matter. The trouble at the moment isthat the county council want to take the high level road and the city council the low level, and until they reach agreement I am in rather a difficulty.

Mr. Shinwell: Is lack of finance one of the reasons why agreement has not been reached? Will the righthon. Gentleman extend his sympathy to these authorities if and when they wish to proceed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The best sequence of action would be for them to agree and come to me with an agreed scheme, and I should then have to judge it in the light of existing priorities.

Mr. Slater: While the Minister has to depend on plans submitted by the local authorities, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) has correctly stated that on more than one occasion the two authorities have been at variance with each other about which way the road should go. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will be receiving reports from his road engineer about the matter. Would it not be in the interests of both local authorities if the Minister could find time to visit Durham and look at the matter himself?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite ready to do that, but both authorities have promised to report to me on the matter and neither has yet done so, and I am awaiting their reports as a preliminary.

Hull (New Bridges)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether his attention has been called to the transport difficulties on Humberside; and what plans have been submitted for new bridges for Hull.

Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. With regard to the second part of the Question, no plans have been submitted to my Department.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Minister undertake to give sympathetic consideration to any proposals which are put to his Department or to him personally for new bridges in Hull?

Mr. Molson: Every proposal isalways received most sympathetically in the Ministry of Transport, but it is not always possible to agree with it.

Mr. Godber: In considering this proposal, will the Minister bear in mind the urgent needs of much better transport facilities for both industry and agriculture in Lincolnshire?

Mr. Molson: The importance of agriculture and industry will both be borne in mind.

Pedestrian Crossings, Manchester

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) the number of zebra pedestrian crossings authorised by him in the City of Manchester; and how many sites proposed by the Manchester Corporation have been rejected since January, 1953;

(2) why he has refused to permit the Manchester Corporation to operate seven new zebra pedestrian crossings at road junctions considered to be dangerous by the Manchester Corporation.

Mr. Molson: One hundred and thirty-nine zebra crossings have been authorised in Manchester. Since January, 1953, there have been applications for seven more, of which one has been rejected because there are already two crossings near the proposed site and six are still the subject of consultation with the City Corporation.

Mr. Griffiths: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me how he and his advisers in the Ministry in London are able to determine the appropriate number of pedestrian crossings in the City of Manchester? Is he aware that the delay in granting permission for this and other crossings is the cause of great concern in the city because of the dangerous state of the roads at the proposed sites? Does he think that the local authority and people of Manchester are not more qualified to determine the site of local pedestrian crossings than the Ministry in London?

Mr. Molson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his right hon. Friend who was Minister of Transport in the last Government issued a circular on 20th June, 1951, calling for a reduction of two-thirds in the number of pedestrian crossings. In the case of Manchester, that reduction has been made. As regards the question who is in a better position to decide where a crossing is required, this responsibility is delegated to the D.R.E.

Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why canal fencing is a matter for local consideration and zebra crossings are decided in Whitehall?

Mr. Molson: Because road traffic is a national problem, since vehicles pass all over the country, whereas the problem of canal accidents chiefly concerns those who live near canals.

Mr. E. Johnson: Will the Minister reconsider the unfavourable decision which I understand has been made in regard to the crossings outside the Christie Hospital?

Mr. Molson: All these matters are being considered at the present time. It is found that some of the crossings that were decided upon when the original reduction was made are not particularly necessary, and this matter is being discussed between the D.R.E. and the Manchester Corporation, as some of the new crossings which have been applied for might with advantage be substituted for some of the others at the same time.

Mr. Griffiths: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Safely

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further preliminary consultations are required with bodies or individuals before he will be in a position to introduce legislation to improve road safety.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already completed my consultations with the interested parties over a large part of the field, but there are certain proposals involving the police and local authorities as well as road users on which I shall need to consult the representative bodies concerned before I can proceed further.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that as recently as the Queen's Speech last November road safety legislation was promised for this Session? Is there no limit to the speed with which the Government break their promises in this connection?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As recently as a fortnight ago I answered Questions on this matter in detail.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Minister say whether a Bill on road safety has been crowded out by the Bill on commercial television?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is my hope and intention to proceed with the Bill as early as practicable—words borrowed from the late Administration.

Fort William—Mallaig Road

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) whether he will take steps to improve the conditions on the Fort William—Mallaig trunk road A.830;

(2) whether, in order to meet the needs of the district, he will increase the restriction of vehicles on the Fort William—Mallaig trunk road A.830 from six tons to eight tons.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my noble Friend knows, a good deal of work has been done on this road to make it fit for heavier vehicles, but to bring it to the desired standard would cost over £½ million, and I am sorry that, having regard to other claims throughout the country, I am unlikely to be able to authorise this in the near future. Meanwhile I regret that I cannot raise the limit beyond six tons.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the war this road and the bridges on it very happily bore the weight of eight-ton lorries without any trouble at all? Is he further aware that this road is positively the worst trunk road that Britain owns, and is it not about time that this highway was improved so that it merited the name "trunk road"?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope to live to see that happen.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask all Members to visit this road themselves—it is reputed to be the loveliest road in the world—and then they will be able to bring pressure to bear on the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that sections of this road between Fort William and Mallaig are in a worse condition than many private roads leading into crofts? Will he look at this question again, because undoubtedly the road carries a volume of holiday tourist traffic and there should be better facilities than there are at present?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will go there myself shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Coal Delivery Schemes (Vehicle Levy)

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, since it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government when negotiating the passage of the Transport Bill through the House in 1953 that house coal delivery service vehicles should be made liable for payment of the transport levy, and since such schemes, co-operatively run by miners, are non-profit-making schemes which in no way compete with the railways, he will have this matter re-examined with a view to removing the levy from domestic schemes of this kind.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was made clear during the debates on the Transport Bill that the cheapest and simplest way to collect the levy was to relate it to the categories of vehicles established for vehicle taxation and that it would be impracticable to discriminate between the various uses to which vehicles were put within those categories. This principle was incorporated in the Transport Act, 1953, and I have no power to alter it.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that these domestic schemes run by coal miners' co-operatives were neither nationalised nor de-nationalised, and that the only effect of the de-nationalisation legislation was to impose a burden upon them which never existed before? Does not he think that, as the schemes never can compete with the railways, the position ought to be re-examined?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Had the right hon. Gentleman put those considerations to me during the passage of the Bill, I should have listened to them with sympathy, but now I am advised that legally such vehicles—however much I sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind—must be classed as businesses. I have no option but to carry out the terms of the Act.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the simplest way out to stop selling the lorries?

Mr. Williams: Willthe Minister between now and the forthcoming Budget consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see if the Finance Act, 1952, can be amended to exclude these schemes from the levy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could give no such undertaking, I am afraid. The complications if we attempted to discriminate would, I think, daunt even the bravest soul.

Passenger Service Appeals

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) whether he is aware that Mr. Harry Brown of Birmingham, made an appeal under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, more than 18 weeks ago, and that no Ministerial decision has yet reached the appellant or his legal representatives; why this protracted delay is occurring; and why Ministerial decisions in such casescannot be given with reasonable promptitude;

(2) why his decision following the appeal on 12th October, 1953, by Gliderways Coaches Limited, of Birmingham, under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, took more than three months to reach the appellants; and

(3) what steps he is taking to expedite the machinery of appeals and decisions under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have now given my decision on Mr. Harry Brown's appeal and it has been communicated to the parties. This particular appeal presented great difficulties mainly of a legal nature. The appeal of Gliderways Coaches raised some complex issues and it took longer than usual to reach a decision and draft the necessary order. As the Thesiger


Committee recognised, the time taken between the lodging of an appeal and the holding of an inquiry into it cannot be significantly shortened. The interval between the inquiry and decision depends mainly on the complexity of the case, but I can assure my hon. Friend that theneed for speed in dealing with these appeals is fully recognised and every endeavour is made to reach and announce a decision as quickly as practicable.

Mr. Nabarro: May I thank my right hon. Friend for a very sympathetic and a helpful answer?

Railway Freight Charges (Increase)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has yet considered the memorandum recently sent to him by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce objecting to the application by the British Transport Commission for an increase of 10 per cent. in railway freight charges; if in considering it, he will bear in mind the special need of Scottish industry, particularly the fishing industry, in North-East Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the subject.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now make a statement concerning the proposed increase in freight charges: and whether he will withhold his approval to any increase affecting the North of Scotland.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have decided to accept the advice of the Permanent Members of the Transport Tribunal, acting as a Consultative Committee, and to authorise the British Transport Commission as from 1st March to increase by 10 per cent.the railway freight, dock and canal charges now in operation, subject in the case of merchandise by freight train and perishable traffic by passenger train to a maximum of 10s. a ton. I am circulating with the Official Report a copy of the Committee's Memorandum, which sets out fully the considerations justifying the increase.
I have considered carefully the representations made to me by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. The issues raised by the Association cannot, however, be dealt with as part of a purely interim settlement of the Commission's

pressing need for further revenue. I have also considered, most sympathetically, the representations made to me by Scottish interests. Some relief from the extra burden imposed will be afforded to them by the limitation of the increase in railway freight rates generally by a maximum of 10s. a ton.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I cannot thank him for that answer—for that outrageous increase in freight charges? Does he realise that, on the memorandum of the Chamber of Commerce, he is acting against the evidence before him and that both capital and labour are in favour of, not an increase, but a reduction in the discrimination against the North of Scotland?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he reads the Memorandum submitted to me by the Transport Tribunal, dealing as it does with the consequences of increased costs, including charges, then perhaps on reflection he would ask his question in a slightly different way, though I do not expect that he would be any more pleased with my answer.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the law of diminishing returns is already beginning to operate in the North of Scotland, and that for a very long period we have had a case for special consideration on freight rates? This applies to all areas remote from production centres. Cannot he ask the chairman of the Transport Commission to go more fully into the question of tapering charges for freight rates?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like to answer the question of my noble Friend straight away. I have the greatest sympathy with those who have to pay freight in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom where long hauls are involved. Under the 1953 Act I specially provided that there should be a new procedure, the detailed rules of which have been made by the Transport Tribunal, enabling the Commission to submit the heads of proposals for a merchandise scheme in a different way from that which would otherwise have been possible. The question of Scotland must be settled between the operator—the Commission—the Transport Tribunal


and the transport interests in Scotland. I have reason to believe that the Commission hope to be able to formulate and submit to the Transport Tribunal heads of proposals, though not a complete merchandise charges scheme, at an early date. That will be the opportunity for Scottish interests to argue with vigour the question of tapering.

Mr. Callaghan: On the general question of the increase of 10 per cent. in freight charges throughout the whole industry, could the Minister tell us how much less than 10 per cent. would have been needed if the Commission had been able to rely upon £7 million profit from British Road Services this year?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All those who talk in that fashion lose sight altogether of the fact that the Commission will be reimbursed both by the sale of the lorries and by the transport levy designed to fill the gap. [Hon. Members: "No."] In addition, they will have a substantial annual saving of net interest costs. This should be borne in mind when hon. Gentlemen make charges of that kind. I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that the Commission will have very substantial road haulage services, in some ways easier units to maintain in the next few years, and if they do well with them, as I hope they will, they may improve on the record of the last six years which is not at all a happy financial one.

Mr. Callaghan: Does that long and rather irrelevant answer mean than, if the Commission were able to rely upon the profits of £7 million again this year, the increase would not have had to be more than 6 per cent.? Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue to blame it wholly on increased wages?

Mr. H. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while he can safely ignore the narrow party points which are made by the Opposition, the extra burden put on industry will be a grievous one, and will he do everything he can to bring about some reduction at an early date?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Indeed I will, but we must see this in perspective. Taking 100 as the pre-war figure, railway freights after this increase will represent 253 compared with the figure of 323 for the General Index of Wholesale Prices.

Following is the Committee's Memorandum:
1. By a letter dated the 31st December, 1953, you asked for our advice on a request made by the British Transport Commission that they should be authorised under Section 82 of the Transport Act, 1947, to increase by 10 per cent. the railway, dock and canal freight rates and charges now in operation subject, in the case of merchandise by freight train and perishable traffic by passenger train or other similar service, to a maximum increase of 10s. per ton.
2. The Commission's request was supported by a memorandum with statistical appendices. Stated summarily the capital conclusions which these documents were directed to supporting were:
(1) that at the present level of their various rates and charges the revenue of the Commission in a full future year would fall short of the expenditure chargeable against this revenue by about £25 million:
(2) that of this total prospective deficiency about £23 million would be attributable to British Railways treated as a separate activity:
(3) that the increases for which authority was sought would in a full year produce additional revenue in the case of British Railways of about £23 million and in the case of the Docks and Canals of about £1·5 million.
3. We have obtained from the Commission such further statistical information as seemed to us necessary for a full understanding of the considerations put forward in their memorandum. This further information included provisional estimates of the results of the operations of the Commission in 1953. The more important of these 1953 estimates were based, however, on accounts which covered only a portion of the year and we have thought it safer to disregard these incomplete and provisional figures and in so far as the financial past of the Commission is relevant to rely on the audited accounts for 1952.
We have of necessity assumed that the arithmetical computations of the Commission are substantially correct as, e.g., that the effect of the recent decision of the Railway Staff National Tribunal will be to increase the wages, costs of the Commission by £6·5 million per annum.
4. The Commission's forecast purported to reflect only those changes which were "already known or fixed,"neglecting the many possibilities which might adversely affect them during the next twelve months. This deliberately limited purview was described by the Commission in the following passage in their memorandum: "The estimate assumes a continuation of the present high levels of traffics: it makes no allowance for further increases of wages in other industries, or for the extent to which the Commission may be unable to recoup, out of the increased economy and efficiency in operation which they are determined to secure, the further increases to be granted to their own workers; and no allowance is made for substantial trading


losses which might be incurred by British Road Services during the disposal period, or for other consequences of the Transport Act, 1953. The forecast assumes, also, that Road Passenger Services (Provincial and Scottish) and "Other Activities"will be able to increase their earnings to cover in full the increased costs falling upon them. In effect, therefore, the forecast in Appendix A must be characterised as optimistic and provisional. As soon as the position is clearer, and at latest in a few months time, this provisional estimate will need amendment and the forecast as it then appears may well lead to a further application for increased charges. That is, the present application is designed merely to stop the greatest part of the gap which already exists and which is running, as the forecast shows, at almost £500,000 a week."
5. The decline in the financial fortunes of the Commission prophesied in their "optimistic and provisional"forecast can we think best be appreciated from the comparison made in the following table between the principle figures in the forecast and corresponding figures taken from the 1952 Accounts.

1952 actual
"Future Year" estimate



£m.
£m.


Net Receipts:




British Railways
37·0
15·0


Docks and Canals
2·3
1·8


London Transport Road and Rail Services
1·0
2·0


British Road Services
1·6
Nil


Road Passenger Services
3·8
4·5


Other Activities
8·9
7·0


Total net receipts
54·6
30·3


Central Charges (after deduction of interest earnings)
50·1
55·5


Surplus/Deficit
4·5
25·2

6. It will be seen from the foregoing table that it is estimated that the net receipts of British Railways will in the "future year" have worsened to the extent of £22 million. This worsening is analysed in the following table:

£m.
£m.


Gross Receipts:




Passengers
+ 2



Freight
+ 12·9



Total increase in gross receipts

14·9


Working Expenses:




Wages
+ 16·2



Pension Scheme
+ 1·2



National Insurance
+ 0·7



Price Levels
+ 6·3



Depreciation
+ 2·0



Maintenance
+ 16·0



Improvements in efficiency and minor changes
- 5·5



Net increase in working expenses

36·9


Difference
22·0

7. The difference (£2 million) between the gross receipts from passengers in 1952 and the estimated receipts for the "future year"is attributable to the fact that whereas the increased fares authorised by the 1952 Passenger Charges Scheme were operative for only a portion of that year, both these increases and the further increases authorised by the 1953 Scheme will as matters now stand be operative throughout the "future year." The "improvement"assumes a decrease in traffic as com pared with 1952 quantified in terms of earnings at £1·9 million.
The estimated improvement (£12·9 million) in the gross freight receipts is based in the main on two considerations, first that as compared with 1952 traffics will show an increase quantified in terms of earnings at £2·6 million, and secondly that whereas the 5 per cent. increase authorised in 1952 was operative during one month only of that year it will operate throughout the "future year."
8. In the case of the first five of the heads under which the anticipated increase in working expenses is analysed the additional expenditure requires little explanation.
Wages. Of the total increase (£16·2 million) £9·7 million is attributable to the wages award of 1952, which was operative during only a portion of that year, and the remainder (£6·5 million) to the "award"of the 3rd December, 1953, by the Railway Staff National Tribunal.
Pension Scheme. The Commission is committed to the establishment of a pension scheme for adult railway male wages staff. The cost of such a scheme in a full year is likely to be of the order of £2·5 million. As it has not yet been brought into operation only a portion (£1·2 million) falls to be provided for in the "future year" estimate.
National Insurance. Contributions were increased in October, 1952. The additional £0·7 million represents the difference between the extra expenditure incurred by reason of this increase during a portion of 1952 and that which will require to be defrayed during the full "future year."
Price Levels. The figure of £6·3 million is made up as to £4·3 million by increases in the prices of coal and steel, as to the remainder (£2·0 million) by other minor increases and by a decrease in the prices obtainable on the sale of steel scrap.
Depreciation. This increase (£2·0 million) is attributable mainly to the fact that, as depreciation is calculated by reference to the historical cost of the assets concerned, the replacement of an asset at a higher price than that at which the asset replaced was acquired involves an increase in the depreciation chargeable against revenue.
9. The increase (£16 million) in the costs charged under the head "maintenance" calls for a fuller examination.
The Commission's forecast is based on the view that the accounting practice whereunder the whole of the expenditure actually incurred in maintaining the British Railways undertaking has not in the past been charged against the undertaking in the Commission's accounts can no longer be justified. This accounting


practice has been debated during each of the three public inquiries we have held into passenger charges schemes. Its origin and justification, the extent to which its application has in each of the five years 1948–52 reduced the amount treated in the Commission's accounts as a working expense chargeable against British Railways receipts, its modification and the ultimate decision wholly to discontinue it have been fully disclosed in the successive published Reports of the Commission. It may nevertheless be useful if we summarise here the history of the matter.
The Commission's Report for 1952, repeating in substance what had appeared in each of the four previous Reports contained in the section described as "Notes on Accounts" the passage following: "The assets of the vested undertakings were not fully maintained during the war and assets were kept in service as long as possible without replacement. Since 1st January, 1948, substantial abnormal expenditure has been incurred on maintenance; this abnormal expenditure arises partly out of the overtaking of areas, partly out of the extra volume and cost of repairs due to the existence of the arrears and partly as a result of other adverse factors resulting from the war. It. is not feasible to identify and quantify precisely this abnormal maintenance expenditure, but the procedure followed during the period of Government control of the vested undertakings has, with appropriate modifications, been continued and a standard charge for maintenance is computed each year, based upon the expenditure in pre-war years adjusted for changes in the quantum of assets in service, and increased to allow for the rise in price levels. In 1948 a close review was made of the adequacy of the charge arrived at on this basis, and further additions were made to the standard for elements of under-maintenance in the base

—
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
Total






£m.
£m.
£m.
£m.
£m.
£m.


Rolling Stock 
…
…
…
59·3
59·3
59·4
61·5
68·9
308·4


Way and Structures
…
…
51·2
53·7
50·7
54·3
65·6
275·5


Collection and Delivery
…
3·3
3·5
3·2
3·3
2·8
16·1


Total Expenditure
…
…
113·8
116·5
113·3
119·1
137·3
600·0


Less Off Charge to Abnormal Maintenance Account
…
18·0
14·0
10·1
10·6
21·1
73·8


Net charge against Revenue
…
95·8
102·5
103·2
108·5
116·2
526·2

The passage from the 1952 Report quoted above shows that it had then been decided that the accounting practice under discussion was to be abandoned by the end of 1953 and that thereafter the whole of the expenditure incurred on maintenance was to be charged against revenue "subject to equalisation arrangements for certain categories of expenditure."

It is estimated that the effect of this decision will be to add £21 million to the maintenance costs charged against revenue in the 1952 accounts. The Commission in preparing their forecast have acted on the assumption that,

period. The excess of the actual maintenance expenditure incurred during the year 1952 over the standard charge so arrived at is regarded as abnormal maintenance expenditure. The amounts in question have accordingly been deducted from the actual maintenance expenditure and charged against the provision set up for this purpose in the Commission's books at 1st January, 1948. The arrangements relating to the standard charge for maintenance have been discontinued at various dates for certain categories of expenditure, and in such cases maintenance expenditure is charged to Revenue Account as incurred. A standard charge based upon pre-war expenditure tends to become less appropriate as time goes on, even though careful adjustments are made for the factors mentioned. It is accordingly intended to discontinue the existing arrangements by the end of 1953 and to substitute a procedure under which maintenance expenditure is charged to Revenue Account as incurred, subject to equalisation arrangements for certain categories of expenditure."

The gradual reduction of the "Abnormal Maintenance Account"from the figure at which it stood on the 1st January, 1948 (£149·7 million), to £67·5 million by the end of 1952 is evidenced by the five successive Balance Sheets. According to the Commission's memorandum the accounts for 1953 will probably show that by the end of that year it had been reduced to less than £50 million. The amounts actually expended in the case of British Railways on maintenance and the portions thereof debited to the "Abnormal Maintenance Account" instead of being charged against revenue as part of the working expenses have been set out in detail in the Annual Accounts. The figures for the five years 1948–1952 were, summarily stated, as follows:—

to quote from their memorandum, "they might be justified in drawing a sum of up to £5 million if necessary, out of the remaining balance of the Abnormal Maintenance Account in order to mitigate the effect of the change in procedure upon the first year concerned."In the result the amount of the additional charge against revenue under this head as compared with the 1952 figures for which in their submission provision should now be made is £16 million. We are not of course, strictly, concerned with the question how the actual future expenditure on maintenance is dealt with in the Commission's accounts. This will, we

presume, be ultimately a matter for the Commission's auditors. The question we are seeking to answer is by how much as matters now stand will British Railways in the "future year" fail to pay their way. For the purposes of this inquiry, in our opinion, the mere fact that some unidentifiable and therefore unquantifiable part of the anticipated expenditure on maintenance may be attributable to past omissions is not a good reason for making any deduction from that expenditure.

Accepting then as we do the Commission's statements of fact we agree with their forecast in this particular. Such doubt as we have felt was not as to the principle involved but as to whether they would not be justified in debiting the depleted Abnormal Maintenance Account with rather more than the £5 million they propose, subject to the approval of their Auditors, to devote to mitigating the effect of the accounting change. Upon the whole, however, we think that the temporary relief of £5 million is as much as would be justifiable.

10. We conclude then from this review that as matters now stand it would be imprudent to put the net traffic receipts of British Rail ways during the "future year" at a higher figure than about £15 million. The Com mission's forecast assumes, we think rightly, that there should be added to these net traffic receipts so much of the Commission's estimated net revenue from commercial advertising and the letting of sites and shops as is attributable to British Railways properties. This allocation is put at £1·5 million. It assumes a decrease of £0·2 million in the total income received from these sources in 1952. We see no reason for thinking that the allocation is to any significant extent under estimated.
For the purposes accordingly of a rough prospective profit and loss account it is estimated that at the present level of their charges British Railways will be able to contribute about £16·5 million to the common pool out of which if the Commission as a whole is to balance its accounts its common or central charges must come. The final question is how much more than £16·5 million ought British Railways to contribute to this common pool in order that they may be considered as a separate activity to be paying their way.
11. The central charges for the "future year" will it is estimated be £58·5 million gross and, after deducting interest receivable by the Commission £55·5 million net. Of the £58·5 million gross £55·2 million is attributable to interest payable by the Commission and to the obligatory provision made for capital redemption.
The question how such central charges should be apportioned between the separate activities of the Commission for the purpose of forming a judgment, in the case of any one of these activities, as to whether it can be considered to be paying its way, was the subject of prolonged debate at each of those public inquiries which have been held into passenger charges schemes. At the latest of these inquiries concluded in April last year the view advanced by the principal critics of the apportionment proposed by the Commission in the case of the London Transport Executive

was that the share of the central charges to-be contributed by each activity should bear the same proportion to the total charges as the fixed assets and goodwill of that activity bore to the aggregate of the fixed assets and goodwill vested in the Commission. Although in our view the question what in the case of each activity is a fair apportionment can not be answered precisely by the application of this or any other single mathematical formula, we think that it affords a sufficiently useful criterion by which to judge the figure suggested by the Commission. According to the latest published figures, i.e., those in the 1952 Accounts, the fixed assets and goodwill of British Railways represented a little more than 72·2 per cent. of the whole of the fixed assets and goodwill of the Commission. By reason of the fact that when the 1954 Accounts are drawn up a large part of the fixed assets and goodwill of the Road Haulage organisation, in 1952 nearly £72 million, will no longer appear it is reasonably certain that the British Railways proportion will then be greater than £72·2 per cent. If for example the Road Haulage assets were reduced to £36 million all the other figures remaining the same, British Railways proportion would be over 73·8 per cent. The apportionable central charges for the "future year" being £55·5 million by applying the criterion under discussion the contribution to be expected of British Railways would (a) if 72·2 per cent. were adopted be rather over £40 million, and (b) if 73·8 per cent. were adopted rather over £40·9 million.
The Commission's forecast assesses the contribution to be expected as £39·5 million, i.e., as about 71·17 per cent, of the apportionable charges. Treating the criterion discussed above as a guide, though no more than a guide, to a fair apportionment, we do not think in the light of our experience that this figure is excessive.
In the result then we see no reason to dissent from the Commission's view that as matters now stand British Railways will in the "future year" be failing to pay their way by approximately £23 million.
12. It remains to consider whether some part of the additional revenue required should be sought from passenger traffic.
The Commission's views on this question are set out in the following passage in their memorandum: "A contribution from passengers will be required in the form of a reduction in the services provided to the public, where these are poorly patronised. It may also be commercially practicable to make selective increases in local fares, or to improve the net results of secondary lines by changing the form of operation and of motive power. But such measures cannot be expected, at least on the short term, to do more than balance the reductions which will doubtless be required in long distance main-line fares to meet the competition from express coaches. Any general increase in long distance railway fares would, in present circumstances, do serious damage to precisely those traffics which railways find profitable."
We feel some difficulty in dealing with this matter because any proposal to increase fares


which involved an alteration of the maxima fixed by the Charges Scheme which came into operation on the 16th August last would have to be considered by us sitting in our normal capacity as a Tribunal. We are, however, satisfied in the light of the evidence put before us during two inquiries into passenger charges schemes, the second of which was concluded at the end of April last, that no general increase could be justified and that such additional revenue as might possibly be obtained by selective increases in particular fare categories would not make any appreciable contribution to the immediate necessities of British Railways.
13. The Commission estimate that the increases for which sanction is sought will yield additional revenue of the order of £23 million. This estimate is admittedly speculative. How speculative it must be appears when it is borne in mind that a decline of 1 per cent. in the total gross receipts would result in a decrease of over £4·25 million.
There are at least two reasons why as it seems to us it would be unwise to act upon the view that the Commission have underestimated the yield from the increases. The first is that in estimating the net revenue to be expected from the charges as they stand at present the Commission have deliberately neglected many factors which may well in the event prove that their forecast was over-optimistic. The second is that any increase which is sanctioned can only operate for at the most eleven months of the present year, and it is obviously most desirable that British Railways' accounts should be brought into balance by the end of the year.
We think therefore that the increases are no more than the situation makes necessary.
14. The Commission estimate that the Docks and Canals taken together will at the present level of charges yield in the "future year" a net revenue of about £1·8 million. The material question is what contribution ought to be expected from them towards the net central charges (£55·5 million).
The figures in the 1952 accounts show that the fixed assets and goodwill of the Docks and Canals represented rather more than 5·7 per cent. of the whole of the fixed assets and goodwill of the Commission. For the reason indicated in paragraph 10 it is to be supposed that when the 1954 figures are available this percentage will be found to be higher. Applying the method of allocation described in that paragraph the contribution to the central charges should be not less than £3·16 million. The net revenue expected being £1·8 million these activities will be failing to pay their way by rather more than £1·3 million.
It is estimated that an increase of 10 per cent. in the present charges will yield £1·5 million in a full year. This is, according to our calculations, £0·2 million more than is necessary to enable it to be said of the Docks and Canals that in a full year they will be paying their way. It is arguable, therefore, that a 9 per cent. increase would suffice. We think, however, that for the reasons indicated in paragraph 13 it would be unwise to adopt so strictly mathematical a view.

15. As the result of our review of the matter we advise that regulations be made as soon as possible authorising the Commission to make the increased charges specified in their application.

Hubert Hull.

A. E. Sewell.

J. C. POOLE.

26th January, 1954.

Crash Helmets (Motor-Cyclists)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he is taking to encourage the use of crash helmets by motor-cyclists.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am taking every opportunity to encourage motor-cyclists to wear safety helmets, and considerable progress has already been made and will, I hope, continue. It is not my present intention to make the use of helmets compulsory.

Mr. Snow: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department accepted the specification produced by the British Standards Institution? I have reason to doubt that that is so. If it is to be accepted by the Ministry as a Department, can publicity be given to the matter, for instance, in the case of the manufacturers and by pictorial representation all over the country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "accept."I mentioned in the House and in a broadcast that the British Standards Institution had come to definite recommendations. I have seen a crash helmet to this specification at the headquarters of the Road Research Laboratory, and I give it every possible encouragement.

Motor-Cycles (Speed Limit)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what speed limits are particularly applicable to motor-cyclists.

Mr. Molson: A motor bicycle is subject to the same speed limits as a private car.

Mr. Snow: Could the matter be looked at again by the Ministry's technical advisers because of the peculiar mechanical characteristics of the motor cycle?
Also, has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in the "Evening Standard" on 20th January, which said:
A sight to watch for in Westminster, A tall man…wearing black jacket, pin-striped


trousers and an Anthony Eden hat, riding a powerful motor-cycle. His destination: the House of Commons.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have seen a few hon. Members in the House answering that description.

Mr. Snow: The hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) is the hon. Member referred to. He is quoted as saying at a dinner at the House of Commons:
I wager I am the only man who comes to the House at 90 m.p.h. with his umbrella clipped to the front of his bike and an Anthony Eden hat fixed firmly on his head.
While opinions may differ as to the desirability of the hon. Member's presence here, can this be looked into?

Mr. Molson: I did not read the report in the "Evening Standard."I should be deeply indebted to the hon. Member if he would send it to me, for I should much enjoy reading it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANALS (DANGER SPOTS)

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to improve the fencing of canals at danger spots, in view of the continuing anxiety of parents for their children's lives, particularly in the coming summer months.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think this problem can be properly or effectively dealt with by means of a general direction, involving as it does canal owners (of whom the British Transport Commission is not the only one), local authorities, riparian owners and other interested parties. I think that the best way to reach a solution is by local co-operation in each particular case.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that the local authorities have passed the buck to the Inland Waterways Executive who have passed the buck back to the local authorities, that quite a number of children have been drowned in Birmingham alone, and that in the central area there is a bomb site open to the canal, and bridges which are not high enough? Surely someone must be made responsible. Large meetings have been held by a number of associations in the area, and

something has to be done. Can the Minister tell us who is responsible and what can be done to prevent children from losing their lives in the coming summer months?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in a long letter on this subject on 22nd November, this is a practical matter which is much better settled locally and not by attempting a national solution of what is not capable of a national answer. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied that there is local co-operation, and if he will give me details of the lack of consultation and where the consultation is falling down, I will take steps to stimulate it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERIES DISPUTE (INTERNATIONAL COURTS JUDGMENT)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he, in conjunction with foreign Governments, has yet completed his study of, and discussions concerning, the repercussions upon the British fishing industry of the decision, adverse to Britain, in December, 1951, of the International Court of Justice at The Hague; if he is aware of the continuing loss and damage which the results flowing from this decision are having on the British fishing industry; and if he will make a statement indicating the results of the study and discussions.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): As I informed the hon. and learned Gentleman on 27th January, Her Majesty's Government regard our dispute with Norway about the areas which were the subject of The Hague Court's judgment of 18th December, 1951, as now settled. I am aware that the consequences of the Court's decision have been prejudicial to the Britishfishing industry, but it would be inappropriate to discuss that decision with foreign Governments. The possible implications of the Court's decision have been carefully studied by Her Majesty's Government and I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the detailed statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on 14th December, 1953.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the complete and abject failure of the Government to protect British interests in this matter, does not the Minister think it rather


absurd to say that it is inadvisable to invite a conference of the powers involved? Surely that is the appropriate way of solving the outstanding problems? Will he change his mind about this and summon such a conference?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am staggered that the hon. and learned Member, who is a lawyer, can use such words about the findings of the International Court. If we accept the rule of law in the world, as we on this side of the House do accept it, we must from time to time accept the
adverse decisions of the Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

MR. FENNER BROCKWAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the conclusions reached on the future constitutions of Northern Rhodesia and Nigeria during his visits to those territories.

MR. P. WILLIAMS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the recent conference held in Nigeria.

At the end of Questions—

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): With permission I will now reply to Questions Nos. 90 and 99.
I hope to make a statement tomorrow in reply to the first part of Question No. 90 which concerns my visit to Northern Rhodesia.
The Lagos Conference continued and completed the work of the conference held in London last summer. I am glad to be able to inform the House that it was an unqualified success. All the conclusions which we reached at Lagos were arrived at by general agreement. The fears, which had been expressed in some quarters, that my decision at the London Conference to make Lagos Federal territory would make this impossible, have proved unfounded. I welcome this opportunity of paying tribute to the spirit of good will in which all the delegations approached the task. All the delegations showed a remarkable insight into the

niceties of constitutional checks and balances and displayed a willingness to sink sectional interests for the common good.
The report of the Lagos conference is being published today as a White Paper. Revised constitutional instruments will now be prepared, in accordance with the conclusions reached at both conferences, for submission to Her Majesty. The work involved is massive but I hope they will be ready in about six months'time. The revised constitution will be reviewed again at a further conference of similar composition to be held not later than August, 1956, when any question relating to the constitution will be open for discussion.
It is my view that the constitutional arrangements agreed upon at the London and Lagos conferences are based upon the realities of the political situation in Nigeria at the present time and offer the form of governmental structure most likely to prove generally acceptable and workable for the time being.
The considerable differences which still exist between the Regions are recognised by giving increased functions to the Regional Governments and making those Governments more independent of the Central Government in carrying them out. At the same time the Central Government not only retains the functions essential to preserving the unity of Nigeria but also, through the introduction of separate elections to the Federal Legislature, gains strength and independence within its sphere.
The new arrangement under which the Southern Cameroons will cease to be part of the Eastern Region but will continue to be administered as part of Nigeria, as quasi-federal territory, was worked out in agreement with the representatives of the Southern Cameroons. It is welcome to them and was endorsed by the other Nigerian delegations.
The insulation from politics of the judiciary, the police and the public service has been secured with general approval. Arrangements have been agreed for the public service which, whilst being in my view fair to those who wish to retire, should encourage the majority to stay on; furthermore the leaders of the Nigerian delegations have made a


most helpful statement about their attitude towards the future employment of overseas staff.
The decisions taken in London and confirmed at Lagos to regionalise the public service and the judiciary have been criticised on grounds of expense and administrative inconvenience. I would, however, remind the House that even the smallest of the three Regions in Nigeria, with a population of 6,360,000, is—with the exception of Tanganyika—bigger than any other British Colonial territory anywhere else in the world.
I cannot repeat too often that Her Majesty's Government firmly believe that it is in the interests of the peoples of Nigeria that the unity of the country should be preserved. It is my hope, indeed my constant hope, that the work we did in London and Lagos will serve to maintain and foster that unity and to promote the progress and happiness of all the people of Nigeria.

Mr. Brockway: While I reserve any comment until I can read the White Paper, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many of us have the unusual response of congratulating him upon the general results of this conference?

Mr. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that many of us on all sides of the House have been profoundly impressed with the sense of responsibility of the politicians taking part in this conference in Nigeria?

Mr. J. Griffiths: While I agree at once that this has been a very successful conference, may I ask the Secretary of State two questions? First, is the settlement of the vexed Lagos question—and I know how vexed it is—a permanent one or is it to come up again; and, secondly, will the White Paper, which I gather is to be available this afternoon, set out so that we may clearly see them the changes made in the constitution by this new agreement?

Mr. Lyttelton: On the first question, the decision to make Lagos a federal area stands. Any question relating to the

Constitution can be raised in 1956. I should not like to answer the right hon. Gentleman specifically on the second question. The White Paper is in the Vote Office now.

Mr. J. Johnson: On the question of Lagos, would the Minister confirm that the Action Group are adamant about its status but that they deliberately left it open until 1956 so that it would not inhibit the success—and undoubtedly it has been a success—of this conference in 1954?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can add nothing to what I have said. Any matter concerning the Constitution is open for discussion in 1956. The hon. Member should also remember that the decision about Lagos has an overwhelming majority of Nigerians in its favour.

Oral Answers to Questions — NOTICE OF MOTION (MEMBER'S NAME)

Mr. Richard Fort: On a point of order. Through a printing mistake, my name was inadvertently included in the names to Motion No. 34 on to-day's Order Paper, with which I am wholly and completely in disagreement.

[That this House welcomes the efforts being made by Herr Ollenhauer on behalf of the German Social Democratic Party to promote an agreed solution of the German problem on the basis of free elections throughout Germany coupled with the renunciation by Germany of participation in the European Defence Community, and urges Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative at the Berlin Conference in proposing a settlement along these lines, confirmed by an agreement between the Four Powers not to enter into any military alliance with Germany.]

Mr. Speaker: I think it was a mistake for the name of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), which is not so unlike the name of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) as to render the mistake inexcusable. I will see that it is corrected.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICE CONTROL (SPARKING PLUGS)

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devon-port): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the retail price of sparking plugs.
I am encouraged in moving the Motion by the enthusiastic and indeed unanimous support which was given by the House yesterday to the Price Control (No. 1) Bill. I think those who were present in the House yesterday, and indeed the decision of the House, proved that no party issue was involved in the matter at all. The House of Commons did what it is often invited to do—it disposed of the matter rather in the spirit of a Council of State. At least for a few minutes during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member forGravesend (Sir R. Acland), who introduced the Bill yesterday, we were spared some of those scenes which have caused such pain to all of us during recent weeks—those scenes in which the two Front Benches belabour one another with such savage and relentless fury. I hope that it is in this different spirit that my Bill will be treated in all the processes through which it will be required to go.
The subject with which I shall deal in the Bill concerns not only a question of gross overcharging but also a significant issue of individual freedom. Between the dates of 3rd October and 10th November of last year a series of advertisements appeared in the Manchester newspapers advertising a number of motor car accessories, and these accessories were advertised for sale at prices well below the normal prices charged.
Some of the accessories involved were sparking plugs, anti-freeze mixture, tyres and such other commodities, and if this Bill, dealing with sparking plugs, receives the reception which I hope it will, then the other matters can perhaps be dealt with later. These advertisements were placed in the Manchster newspapers by a Mr. Geoffrey Oliver Symes, who is managing-director of a Manchester company known as the Vollmax Battery Co.
He had placed these advertisements with the purpose of carrying on his business. His business, as regards sparking plugs, is roughly as follows. The normal price charged for sparking plugs

over the country is 5s. or 5s. 6d. each. Mr. Symes was advertising sparking plugs which he sold at 3s. 6d. or 3s. 9d. These same sparking plugs were sold to the garages and distributors sometimes at 3s. and sometimes at 2s. 10½d. According to Mr. Symes, however, the manufacturing cost of the sparking plug is somewhere in the region of 9d. or 9½d. In any case, the offer made in the advertisement was 3s. 6d. or 3s. 9d. for sparking plugs which normally cost 5s. or 5s. 6d.
What has happened since? Within a few weeks, Mr. Symes received a letter from the British Motor Trade Association. It was a registered letter, and Mr. Symes says that it looked very much like a summons. I will quote to the House a sentence or two from the letter which he received from the British Motor Trade Association. The letter said:
We have to inform you that facts have been brought to the attention of this Association with which your name is associated and which will be brought before the price protection committee or adjudicator. Your attendance is invited. We would warn you, however, that should you not attend the matter will be inquired into in your absence and such action decided upon as deemed proper.
Mr. Symes is not a member of the Motor Trade Association or any body associated with it, but he decided to accept this courteous invitation, and he came to London, at considerable expense to himself, in order to appear before this committee. Not only did Mr. Symes present himself before the committee, but reporters from seven national newspapers went along with him. Mr. Symes was admitted to the proceedings of the committee, but the seven reporters were excluded.
After the proceedings had taken place a spokesman of the British Motor Trade Association stated that no statement could be issued on the proceedings that had taken place owing to the risk of legal action. Fortunately, Mr. Symes was able to give his account of what happened at these proceedings. He was brought before the adjudicator, a certain Sir Grattan Bushe, and the adjudicator, according to Mr. Symes, asked him the simple question whether he would, in. future, give an undertaking that he would sell his sparking plugs and other commodities only at the price fixed by the ring.


Mr. Symes replied that he would not do so, as he would regard that as a betrayal of faith with his customers, whereupon the adjudicator came to his judicial decision and decided, strangely enough, in favour of the Motor Trade Association. He informed Mr. Symes that there was no other course open to the adjudicator except to place Mr. Symes on the "stop list,"which meant that every effort would be made by other members of the Association to prevent Mr. Symes from receiving commodities from members of the Association.
Fortunately, I am glad to say, Mr. Symes has not been put out of business by this well-contrived piece of tyranny although clearly, from the action of the adjudicator, that was the whole purpose of the operation. However, Mr. Symes has not been put out of business. He is continuing his fight against the ring, and I hope that the vote of this House of Commons today will encourage him in his endeavours. But I should like to ask whether it is proper that this Star Chamber should be allowed to continue. We have the right to ask whether it is proper that motorists should be fleeced and honest men like Mr. Symes be put in jeopardy, or possible jeopardy, of their livelihood because we refuse to act.
Mr. Symes, along with a few others, has in recent years been fighting a ring composed of four main firms which have held pretty well a monopoly position in this industryfor something like 25 years. The figures are, so far as we can discover them up to date, that something like 90 per cent. of all sparking plugs sold in this country are sold at the ring prices and, therefore, the small men fighting the ring have not yet been able to make very great headway, although they are certainly manufacturing sparking plugs well below the price fixed by the ring.
It may be said: Why not leave the whole of this matter to the Monopolies Commission? They were appointed to deal with this sort of subject. I understand that the Monopolies Commission has made some investigation into these cases, but it has been agreed on all sides of the House that the procedure of the Monopolies Commission is notoriously slow, and although the members of the Monopolies Commission are undoubtedly

trying to discharge their functions as well as they can, they have an enormous accumulation of cases to deal with. But this is a clear case that could be dealt with immediately.
Since I gave notice that I would introduce this Bill, I have received information from one of the small firms fighting the ring, the Wico-Pacy firm of Bletchley, which produces sparking plugs at 3s. 6d. and sells them at the same price as Mr. Symes was attempting to sell his sparking plugs. I hope that through this Bill we may assist the Monopolies Commission and make it work a bit faster, and indeed that we shall relieve it and enable it to get on with many of the other monopolies into which it has to inquire.
I think that we should have the support of the President of the Board of Trade in this matter because the President of the Board of Trade was once a most passionate enemy of monopoly. He was also a youthful and brilliant spokesman in favour of individual rights. He seems to have suffered something of a relapse in recent years. Indeed, it might be said of the President of the Board of Trade that he has passed from the stage of rising hope to elder statesman without any intervening period whatsoever. Here, I think, is a chance for himto recover his reputation and to fulfil the election pledge of the Conservative Party, because we were promised at the last Election that they would take action about monopolies, and I think that we were promised at the begining of this Parliament that a Bill would be introduced.
Well, here is a small beginning, and I hope that the Government will give their support to this Measure through all its stages. In conclusion, I should like to quote one other sentence from Mr. Symes. Mr. Symes said that in his view these price-fixing arrangements are "a racket through and through." I ask the House of Commons to agree with him.

Mr. William Shepherd: I think that the House will agree that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has this afternoon put forward his case with a great deal of good humour, and, if I may say so, with less venom than he usually shows, and we are very grateful to him for that.


I want to address a few remarks to the House on this question which is,] think, of interest to all of us, in order to put the matter in what I consider to be the right perspective. I agree that there are issues in connection with the sale of sparking plugs which demand our attention. The general pattern of the trade is that about 40 million sparking plugs are made each year in this country and sold—20 million inside the country and roughly 20 million outside.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member opposing the introduction of the Bill?

Mr. Shepherd: Yes, Sir. Roughly 20 million are sold inside this country and 20 million outside. It is true that the difference between the manufacturing cost and the selling price is quite considerable. If I may, I will try to give the House what I think is the difference between those figures. Roughly speaking, the cost of production appears to be in the neighbourhood of 1s. 6d., and the selling price, as hon. Members know, varies from 3s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. It is not, of course, true to say that there is in this business a specific price ring. It is not true to say that. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] One can buy sparking plugs either at 3s. 6d., 5s. or 5s. 6d. Therefore, I feel that it cannot be truthfully said that there is a price ring, and I am assured there is no agreement among manufacturers.
In moving his Motion, the hon. Member for Devonport has referred to one firm, Messrs. Wico-Pacy, and I understand that the sales of their plugs in this country at a price of 3s. 6d. run into seven figures. Therefore, it is clear that the public has a choice of buying sparking plugs either at 3s. 6d., 5s. or 5s. 6d. The issue to which the hon. Member has directed our attention and the one which I wish to put specifically before the House is the method of compelling people to sell goods at a specific price. I agree with the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly that it is not a desirable thing, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has taken action which indicates that he feels there is cause for concern on this issue.
The House will remember that last July my right hon. Friend referred the issue of exclusive selling and collective boycott to the Monopolies Commission under Section 15 of the Act, which was

a very substantial step; and I tend to oppose the hon. Gentleman's Bill because I do not think it would be proper to single out this particular industry for this specific treatment. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, I will ex-explain why.
It is not true to say that the method of selling adopted by the sparking plug manufacturers is limited only to sparking plugs. A good deal of the criticism which the hon. Member has directed against the makers of sparking plugs could be directed against the makers of a number of accessories in the motor car field. Therefore, I do not think it would be a good thing to arrive at a state of affairs in this country where, by Act of Parliament, a practice was legal for one manufacturer and illegal for another.
I do not deny that this issue is a serious one and ought to be considered. There is a good deal of concern about it among hon. Members on this side of the House. On the other hand, I do not think that we ought to "jump the gun"of the Monopolies Commission. I do not think that my hon. Friends would wish to divide against this Motion. We shall see what sort of Bill the hon. Gentleman produces, because the House will note that he hardly said anything about the contents of the Bill. They are a complete mystery. In those circumstances, I do not think my hon. Friends would wish to divide the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Foot, Sir Richard Acland, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Miss Jennie Lee, Mr. William Griffiths, Mr. Delargy and Mr. Bing.

PRICE CONTROL (NO. 2) BILL

to reduce the retail price of sparking plugs," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Mr. Wedgwood Benn(Bristol, South-East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) rose to speak on this Bill, you asked him whether he was opposing the Motion before the House. He said that he was. Subsequently in the course of his speech, he said that he did not intend to divide the House and that he and his hon. Friends wished to see what was in the Bill. When you collected the voices,


I watched the hon. Member very carefully and he did not shout "No."
I submit that it is an abuse of the privileges of the House and the procedure under the Ten Minutes Rule for an hon. Member to make a speech while having no intention of opposing the Motion—which is only a Motion asking leave to introduce a Bill—and when an opportunity is given for hon. Members to express an opinion by voice, if not by vote, to decline to do so. I should be grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is true that the Question before the House at the primary stage is that leave be given to bring in the Bill, and the Standing Orders say that the Speaker shall hear a short speech from the hon. Member who asks for leave to do so and a short speech from an hon.Member who opposes the Motion that leave be given. It is usual on these occasions, if an hon. Member speaks at all against the Motion, that he shall give his vote and voice against it. I can only presume that on this occasion, as the hon. Member for Cheadle developed his argument he departed from the intention with which he rose. But it is a matter to be observed in future, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for raising it. If hon. Members do rise to oppose the introduction of a Bill under this Rule, they ought to carry it at least to the stage of indicating that they will vote against it.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order. Since the question of the dignity of the House has been raised, may I ask whether it does not appear that the whole purpose of moving these Motions, both yesterday and today, is a deliberate manoeuvre? Yesterday the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) made a remark that his Motion related to one of a series of Measures, and may not this be recognised as part of a deliberate manoeuvre to get over party propaganda—[Hon. Members: "No."]—even at the risk of injuring the dignity and prestige of this House?

Sir Richard Acland: I have just been accused of initiating yesterday a deliberate manoeuvre with malicious intent. I entirely repudiate any

such charge. Whenever commodities or services offered by public enterprise are increased in price, or offered for sale at a price which anyone thinks is too high, it is thought perfectly proper to bring up the matter for discussion on the Floor of this House and to make the kind of propaganda speeches which the Press pick out, and speeches which are, if one likes to say so, party propaganda against the nationalised industries. It is certainly equally proper, in my submission, as long as the thing is not carried to excess, to make use of opportunities afforded by this House in order to challenge prices charged by private enterprise.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot allow this to develop into an irregular debate. There is nothing more in the point of order. It is not for me to speculate in any way about the motives which induce hon. Members to introduce Bills under this Rule. I think the hon. Baronet put his finger on the spot when he said that this should not be carried too far. I think that is the view of the House. But as to motives and as to politics entering into the proceedings, I think it would be very unreasonable not to expect the occasional intrusion of politics into this assembly, and I think there is no more to be said on the matter. The dignity of the House is in the hands of all Members of the House, and it is for them so to use its rules that that dignity remains intact and, if possible, enhanced.

Mr. John Hynd: There is a further point on which I think we should have an answer, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there is a Ruling—certainly a long-standing practice—that it is wrong for hon. Members in making speeches to make imputations against other hon. Members. Is it not infinitely more so when the Motion has been moved and accepted by the House that such imputations should be made against the mover and those who have supported him?

Mr. Speaker: The general rule is not to impute to an hon. Member any un-avowed motive. I think that when the motive is a political one, the House will take it in a spirit of give and take. Every hon. Member, after all, has certain avowed political motives in being here.

Orders of the Day — HILL FARMING BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS OF S. 10 OF HILL FARMING ACT, 1946.)

The Chairman: The first Amendment—in page 1, line 16, to leave out "cease to have effect; but," and to insert "provide that"—is out of order, as it destroys the whole meaning of the Clause.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I gather, Sir Charles, that you have said that the first Amendment is out of order on the ground that it destroys the whole meaning of the Clause. I do no: know whether it has been appreciated that that Amendment and the Amendments in page 1, line 19, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may" and in page 2, line 7, at end, to insert:
(c) provided that in the case of any cottage to which conditions as amended by this section are applied the grant payable shall be that set out in section one of the Housing Act, 1952.
are, in fact, all part of one principle—not to destroy the meaning of the Clause at all, but simply to provide an alternative method of procedure which would impose a smaller charge on the Exchequer in those circumstances where it was better to do so. It does not matter, Sir Charles, whether you call only one of those three Amendments so long as we have the chance to develop the point to which we attach importance. May I ask whether it is your intention to allow us that opportunity on either of the other two Amendments?

The Chairman: I did not appreciate that the three Amendments to which the right hon. Member has referred went together, because all of them deal with separate points. I propose calling the Amendment in page 1, line 19, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may"; but the Amendment in page 2, line 7, is out of order because it proposes a new charge. I was, therefore, not going to call that Amendment, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his point on the third Amendment if he wishes.

Mr. G. Brown: The argument will have to go a little wider than the narrow "shall" or "may" argument, but so long as you allow us to argue on the third Amendment—

The Chairman: I am not giving promises in advance, but I will bear it in mind. The Amendment in page 1, line 16, after "effect," to insert:
in so far as cottages, in respect of which improvement grants under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, are made after the passing of this Act, are continued.
also covers the Amendment in page 2, line 34, to leave out subsection (5) so I do not propose calling the Amendment in line 34.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "effect," to insert:
in so far as cottages, in respect of which improvement grants under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, are made after the passing of this Act, are continued.
It will be appreciated by the Government that what we have in mind here is to ensure that, under the new regulations, cottages that were built or improved under Section 10 of the 1946 Act will continue to be untied as at present. That seems to us to be reasonable. On the Second Reading I was twitted a little because I said that this was retrospective legislation and some hon. Members said that there was nothing retrospective about it at all. We merely wish to ensure by this Amendment that the farmer or owner who took a grant for the building or improving of a cottage under Section 10 shall continue to observe the conditions under which that grant was made available to him; that is to say, the occupant of any such cottage shall continue to occupy it as a tenant and, as such, shall enjoy certain protection.
We do not like the new provisions even to tie cottages in future, but we here seek to limit the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill so as to ensure that the cottages that have hitherto been built or improved with grants under Section 10 shall continue to be occupied in accordance with the conditions under which the grants were paid.
That cannot be a hardship to anyone. We are not being harsh on the owners or the farmers who enjoyed the grants. They took the grants with their eyes


open, knowing the conditions under which they were made available. The farm workers took occupation of the cottages in the knowledge that they were protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts. They were offered some protection and it is quite wrong that they should now have taken from them any protection given under the 1946 Act. It is equally wrong that the owner of the house should now be relieved of conditions which he accepted at the time of accepting the grant.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East): This Bill undoubtedly has a retrospective aspect which the Amendment seeks to remove. When the Bill was introduced by the Front Bench opposite, I understood it was because there was a deterrent effect upon the building of farm cottages necessary for the running of isolated farms, where it is not easy to get shepherds because of the difficulty of getting living accommodation reasonably near to the man's work. I gathered that was the main purpose of the Bill and the reason for its introduction, despite the fact that it was quite obvious that the Bill was going to upset the farm workers of this country.
The Minister then knew quite well that there has been, is and will continue to be a great deal of opposition to the continuance of this tied cottage principle as it relates to farming as a whole; he knows very well that the farm worker does not like it; but despite that fact, he brings in legislation of this sort. I heard the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say quite recently that he regarded the farming industry as being something in which there are three working partners, and undoubtedly one of those partners is the farm worker. If he wants to insure the good-will of the farm worker in the running of this industry, he should not bring in legislation which, in my opinion, will go a long way towards alienating some of the good will and the desire to help which undoubtedly exists among farm workers.
The Labour Government did not find it wise, in the circumstances of the housing situation, to abolish the tied cottage, but in the Hill Farming Act, 1946, they prevented its extension in certain respects, and one of them was the building of houses with improvement grants given by the Government of the day.

In winding up the debate on Second Reading, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to the deterrent effect on the building of additional cottages for the purpose which he and all of us have in mind, namely, increasing the number of houses available in the rural areas. He said:
There has nevertheless been, in our judgment, some deterrent effect in some cases which has held back the landlord or the farmer from building a new cottage or reconditioning an old one which he would have done if he knew that he could get the grant and still keep the cottage as a tied cottage."—[Official Report, 1st February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 156.]
That might be applicable to every house built or reconditioned in the future, but quite obviously it cannot apply to the houses built between 1946 and the time when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to take the step of making this legislation retrospective to houses which were built under entirely different conditions. After all, those landlords who reconditioned houses, or farmers who erected new houses, under the improvement schemes did so with their eyes wide open, recognising the conditions which were contained in the Act of 1946 and the regulations prepared under it.
To make the Bill retrospective will certainly not cause any additional cottages to be built, because the cottages are already there. They have been built or reconditioned. It might do a little bit in the future, but I object to the principle involved. The only effect of the Bill, therefore, will be to upset further those people who are such an essential part of the farming industry, namely, the farm workers, who hate tied cottages because of their obvious implication that the tenant is tied to his job.
I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept this Amendment and that this legislation will not be made retrospective. I might add that when I sat on the Government side of the House, time after time I heard members of the then Opposition arguing that legislation should be made retrospective only in the rarest and most urgent of instances. Surely this is not one of those instances.
Retrospective legislation is bad, and I am hoping that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, when he considers all these


factors, will be able to say that he is prepared, if not to accept the wording of the Amendment, at any rate to accept the principle so as to ensure that retrospection is not embodied in this Bill when it becomes an Act.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: If I support this Amendment I am sure the Committee will not be under any misapprehension about my attitude to tied cottages. I tried to make that attitude plain on Second Reading. I detest tied cottages and I detest this miserable Bill. I am merely supporting the Amendment because it touches on an aspect of the matter which is extremely important not only to the individual concerned but to the industry.

4.15 p.m.

One effect of this Bill will be to create a gulf between employer and worker in agriculture. It is a vicious Bill, and it really seeks to do something, not for the purpose of improving matters, but something which will have the very opposite effect on the farm workers and the occupants of these cottages. I regret the provision in the Bill that these grants should be made retrospective. The owners of the cottages knew exactly the conditions under which the grants were made when they were first made. What is more, the workers occupying the cottages also realised that they were there under certain conditions.

I very much regret the suggestion in the Bill of making these grants retrospective. I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will have another look at this matter, because I am sure he will be with me in expressing the hope that the good relations which have characterised agriculture for a good many years will continue, and I say emphatically that I do not think there is a chance of their continuing on the same happy lines if this kind of legislation is persisted in. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has now a chance to retrieve his past. Let him have another look at this, and I hope he will agree to the principle suggested in our Amendment.

Major D. McCallum: I intervene in this debate only for one moment to try to put things right. The hon. Member for Derbyshire South-East (Mr. Champion) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) insisted that

this Bill goes contrary to all the wishes of the farm workers in the country. I cannot stress too much that this is a Hill Farming Bill dealing with the hill farming industry, and that it has nothing to do with general farming.
I repudiate what both hon. Members said; I repudiate that the hill farming workers of this country, particularly in Scotland, feel any grievance because this Bill is being introduced. We have not had one protest. When I introduced a Private Member's Bill along the same lines in 1950, I did not have a protest from any of the hill farming areas and I have not received any such protests now. The other day I asked whether the Government had received any such protests from workers in the hill farming industry and I understand that not one has been received.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) has just told us that there have been no protests of which he is aware against the proposals in this Bill.

Major McCallum: In Scotland.

Mr. Hayman: But he has just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch)—

The Chairman: I think the last three speeches have all been Second Reading speeches. We are dealing with an Amendment only, and this debate is going a little wide of that Amendment.

Mr. Hayman: All I was going to say was that hon. Members opposite are completely unaware of the great indignation which farm workers as a whole feel against the principle of the tied cottage.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The effect of this Amendment, as has been stated by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), would be to limit the effect of the Bill to the new cottages that are built. Our intention is to bring this aspect of these farm cottages into line with the general effect of the 1952 Housing Act so that all farm cottages actually built or improved with grants will be occupied on the same basis, that is to say, in time they will all be occupied on the basis of service occupancy plus the four weeks' safeguard. We think it


would be a mistake to create a situation in which cottages already built will have the existing conditions applied and those which are completed now and built in the future will have a different set of conditions applied to them.
We recognise fully that the occupant of one of the cottages already completed is in a special position, and it is our intention to safeguard that by maintaining his position as a tenant so long as he remains on that farm. However, when he leaves the cottage the new conditions that will be made under this Bill will apply, so that the cottage can be occupied in the future on the basis of a service occupancy.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: My hon. Friend said as long as the present occupant remains on that farm. Does he mean that or does he mean as long as the present occupant remains in the cottage?

Mr. Nugent: Aslong as the present occupant remains in the cottage would, I suppose, be strictly accurate because he has a tenancy and his tenancy will not be terminated until the farmer who employs him has gone to the court and satisfied the court that the tenancy should be terminated. So there might be an interval of time between the end of his work on the farm and of his leaving the cottage—in fact there would be a few months. Some of them may remain for the whole of the 20 years for which these conditions run, but we feel we have met the human aspect of this problem and have taken the necessary measures to achieve uniformity eventually when those who are already in the grant-aided cottages leave their farms.
In reply to the general argument made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), our primary objective in this Bill is to ensure that sufficient new cottages are built in hill farming and livestock rearing areas, and that old existing cottages which need improving are improved. The basis of our thought in this matter is that when these improvements are made the general arrangement of service occupancy shall be preserved, because we take the view that this meets the practical necessities of the industry. The stockman is the most obvious example. He is not only

essential to the work of the farm, but to the life of the farm. To my mind, one of the main reasons this system of the service occupancy of cottages has grown up is the need to provide living accommodation on the farm for the man who looks after the livestock, so that when he ceases his work, he leaves the cottage so that his successor can come in without a break.
Where arrangements are made which will leave an interval of anything of the order of three or four months, it is obviously a completely impracticable position from the point of view of looking after livestock. It is because of that basic thought in our approach to this matter, to meet the practical necessities of the industry, that we feel it wise in this relatively limited class of cottages which received grants under the original Act, for them in due course to come into line with the rest, so that, in future, they may be occupied on the basis of a service tenancy.
For those reasons we cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Mr. Gooch: The hon. Gentleman referred to some talks he had before drawing up this Bill. To whom did he talk?

Mr. Nugent: I did not refer to any talks—

Mr. G. Brown: It is a considerable criticism of the Minister and of the Government if, on a Bill of this kind, which affects so many people so seriously and on which such strong views are held, as the Parliamentary Secretary himself recognised on Second Reading, the Minister did not have any talks with anybody before he introduced the Bill.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: The Minister did not say so.

Mr. Nugent: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that I had no talks, but that I did not refer to having any talks.

Mr. Brown: Since the Minister has dodged the perfectly fair question of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) by giving an answer which he admits was a dodge, will the hon. Gentleman proceed to tell us with whom he had any talks?

Mr. Nugent: I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for making speeches for me, but I can assure them that I am well able to speak for myself.
I made no reference of any kind to having any talks, nor was I asked whether I had any talks. The hon. Gentleman simply made an interjection which referred to something he thought I had said. Well, I had not said it, and I said that I had not. The right hon. Gentleman has now put a new question to me, and that I am prepared to answer, as to what talks we have had in this matter. We have been guided in this matter by our general impression of what we thought was necessary, and by representations we have had from the C.L.A. and the N.F.U.

Mr. Brown: It took a little doing to get that information, but I congratulate my hon. Friend upon having got it. On a matter that affects more than anybody else the man who lives in the cottage, the Government did not discuss it with his representatives.

Mr. Champion: Shame.

Mr. Brown: Discussions with the landlord, yes; the farmer, yes; but the farm worker, no. The Government, for the first time since 1945, have thrown overboard the idea that discussions about what to do for this industry must be non-partisan and must take into consultation all sections of the industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) leaned over backwards in an effort never to do anything without consulting the County Landowners' Association, as it then was, and the National Farmers' Union. It is outrageous that a Tory Minister has served notice on those of us who are concerned with the farm workers' side of the industry that we are no longer worth consulting and that the Minister should not even come to this Committee and defend the point.
By comparison with his predecessor the right hon. Gentleman would not even make a Parliamentary Secretary on a poor day. He is the first who has not consulted every section of the industry. I have never been really angry about his administration of agriculture before—[Interruption]—yes, in recent weeks, in

Sussex, at the National Farmers' Union, and in South Wales, I have defended the idea that I would not attack the Minister on political grounds. Yet I am told today that on an issue of this kind no discussions were held with the workers' side of the industry. We do not blame the hon. Gentleman because he is only reporting, but we hope that he will represent to his Minister that if this is the line to be followed it will bring about a complete change in the atmosphere in the industry.

Mr. Nugent: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? I think I shall put this in perspective if I inform him that the representations which were made by these two bodies were both made on their own initiative. Curiously enough, we had no representations at all from the workers' unions.

Mr. Brown: Yes, but would the hon. Gentleman expect the National Union of Agricultural Workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union or the Scottish Farm Servants' Union to make representations about a situation with which they were satisfied unless the Minister told them that he was proposing to change it? Of course not.

4.30 p.m.

This is outrageous, and there is no defence. If hon. Members want it this way, all right, but do not let us have any more lectures from hon. Gentlemen opposite or from the Minister about this being a non-partisan matter which we try to discuss together in order to achieve the best results.

You rightly said, Sir Charles, that we are at the moment discussing not the general principle of the Clause, which we shall have the opportunity of doing later, but the Amendment. I am very unhappy and sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to accept the Amendment. In the past, hon. Members opposite have been very strong and loud in their protestations that retrospective legislation is bad, that when something has been done and everybody has known the basis on which it has been done, it is bad for a Government subsequently—even worse if it is a subsequent Government—to change the whole situation to the detriment of some people who thought they were all right under the original legislation.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My hon. Friend has made it clear that he is not changing any existing tenancy agreement. There is no retrospective legislation in this respect.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is too fast. I do not normally talk on these matters without first trying to find out the position. I would not pull a fast one like that; there is plenty of ammunition in the Bill without trying to be clever.
As I understand it, there is a vital difference in relation to dependants. The protection in the case of dependants is not that which exists under the ordinary rent restriction law. The change means that the dependants will not have the protection that they would otherwise have had, and that is why the change alters the position of those who are at present in occupation. I am reminded that in any case we have only an unsupported assertion that the protection exists. Assuming that the assertion is correct, I am advised that I am right in deducing that there is a fundamental change in the case of some people who have depended on the original law for their protection after the tenant dies.
As my right hon. Friend clearly brought out, the real point is that if a farmer or landlord accepted money to the tune of half the cost of putting up a cottage on the conditions on which it was offered, and was well satisfied to accept it, what grounds are there, after the money has been paid, retrospectively to change the conditions under which the farmer or landlord accepted the money?
We hope, later in the day, completely to torpedo the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that about 50 applications for hill farming improvement schemes have been withdrawn out of the many thousands which have been submitted, and that it can be deduced that some of the 50 were withdrawn because of dissatisfaction with the conditions. I can accept that, if one has the political philosophy of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is perhaps something in their arguments for altering the law forward to accommodate the 50 or such proportion of the 50 who were not willing to build or improve cottages on these terms. Nevertheless, 50 is such a small proportion of the many thousands of schemes submitted that I should not have

judged them of sufficient importance to justify changing the law. As I say, I can understand the argument even if I cannot accept it.
But what I cannot understand is that, because 20, 30, 40 or 50 people in the whole country would not build or improve a cottage in future because of the conditions, the conditions are to be altered also for the hundreds or thousands who have built or improved cottages in the past and were happy to do so under the conditions. This seems to be retrospective legislation of the worst type. Whatever happens to the existing tenant or the incoming occupier who would have been protected under the conditions accepted by the landlord when he took several hundred pounds of public money, he certainly will not be protected when the conditions have been changed. This really is a bad business.
The only defence offered by the Parliamentary Secretary was that it would be a tidy arrangement to have everything uniform, the old cottages coming under the same conditions as all forward cottages. Tidy and uniform administration is a beautiful bureaucratic argument. Anyone who has ever sat on the Government Front Bench must have heard it hundreds of times. But it really does not mean anything at all. There is no virtue in tidiness or uniformity, and there is less than virtue in it if tidiness is obtained at somebody's expense.
To get tidiness or uniformity at the expense of human happiness must be a bad thing. Conservativism certainly means uniformity and bureaucratic tidiness, and we understand that well enough, but to adduce this in the Committee as the only argument for getting rid of the agreement which has hitherto existed about the operation of this legislation when it means putting a lot of people in jeopardy and making them unhappy and uncomfortable, is most ineffective, even from the Tory Party.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is a human problem. How right he is! But he is dealing with it—he will protest about this; I know him very well, and it does not fit his character—in an inhuman way. To get tidiness and uniformity, he is being inhuman, hard and harsh to men who are living in cottages belonging to their employers


and have been well protected, and whose employers have had large sums of public money on condition that they protected their men.

Mr. Nugent: I have specifically explained that those who are now occupying the cottages have the protection continued.

Mr. Baldwin: The next man need not take the job if he does not want it.

Mr. Brown: I have explained why it is that the protection which will now fall to the dependants is not the same as that under the old arrangement, and it will not be the same in the case of

those taking the place of the present tenant.

This is a bad Bill. On Second Reading I called it a dirty Bill, and it has not been cleaned up since then. Acceptance of the Amendment would not have cost the Government anything, but they would at any rate have met the little point that we have put up and would have helped somebody. In their wisdom, the Government have decided to resist the Amendment. Consequently, we shall divide the Committee on it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 263.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[4.37 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
King, Dr. H. M.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Awbery, S. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fienburgh, W.
Lewis, Arthur


Balfour, A.
Finch, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McGhee, H. G.


Bartley, P.
Follick, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F.


Bence, C. R.
Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Benson, G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Beswick, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gibson, C. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Blackburn, F.
Glanville, James
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy


Blyton, W. R.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Messer, Sir F.


Bowden, H. W.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moody, A. S.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morley, R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hamilton, W. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Moyle, A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hargreaves, A.
Mulley, F. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Murray, J. D.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hastings, S.
Nally, W.


Carmichael, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Champion, A. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oldfield, W. H.


Chapman, W. D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Oswald, T.


Clunie, J.
Holman, P.
Padley, W. E.


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, Horace
Paget, R. T.


Collick, P. H.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hoy, J. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Charles


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parkin, B. T.


Daines, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, T. F.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, B.
Porter, G.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pryde, D, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Donnelly, D. L.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rankin, John


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Edelman, M.
Keenan, W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Kenyon, C.
Richards, R.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.





Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Swingler, S. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wigg, George


Ross, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Royle, C.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Willey, F. T.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, David (Neath)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thornton, E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Timmons, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Tomney, F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Skeffington, A. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Usborne, H. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Wallace, H. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Warbey, W. N.
Yates, V. F.


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Sorensen, R. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)



Sparks, J. A.
Weitzman, D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Steele, T
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mr. Arthur Allen and Mr. John Taylor.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
West, D. G.



Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hurd, A. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Dormer, Sir P. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Iremonger, T. L.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baker, P. A. D.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Kaberry, D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, H. W.


Banks, Col. C.
Erroll, F. J.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Barber, Anthony
Fell, A.
Lambton, Viscount


Barlow, Sir John
Finlay, Graeme
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Baxter, A. B.
Fisher, Nigel
Leather, E. H. C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fort, R.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Birch, Nigel
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Black, C. W.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Longden, Gilbert


Bossom, Sir A. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bowen, E. R.
Glover, D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McAdden, S. J.


Braine, B. R.
Gough, C. F. H.
McCallum, Major D.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
McKibbin, A. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grimond, J.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harden, J. R. E.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Bullard, D. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Campbell, Sir David
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Carr, Robert
Heath, Edward
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marples, A. E.


Channon, H.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maude, Angus


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maudling, R.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hinchingbrooke, viscount
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mellor, Sir John


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Holland-Martin. C. J.
Molson, A. H. E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hollis, M. C.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holt, A. F.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hope, Lord John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Crouch, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M.P.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Horobin, I. M.
Neave, Airey


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicholls, Harmar


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Howard, Hon. Graville (St. Ives)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)




Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Oakshott, H. D.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Odey, G. W.
Russell, R. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Scott, R. Donald
Turton, R. H.


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Osborne, C.
Shepherd, William
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Page, R. G.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wade, D. W.


Perkins, Sir Robert
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smyth, Brig. J, G. (Norwood)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Snadden, W. McN.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Pickthorn, K. W M.
Soames, Capt. C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Pitman, I. J.
Speir, R. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Powell, J. Enoch
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wellwood, W.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Redmayne, M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Storey, S.
Wills, G.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Renton, D. L. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)



Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Studholme, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Robertson, Sir David
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.


Robson-Brown, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may."
Just before you came into the Chair, Sir Rhys, I had raised with Sir Charles the question of this Amendment, the first Amendment, to page 1, line 16—which had not been selected—and the proposed Amendment in page 2, line 7. I had pointed out that, in fact, this Amendment is part of three which, in our view, stood together and sought to provide an alternative procedure.
Your predecessor, Sir Rhys, was kind enough to say that he would be a little lenient in the debate on this Amendment so that we could make a point which is really essential. I am not concerned with the question of whether "shall" or "may"are interchanged, except to provide an opportunity for an alternative procedure under the Bill, and on that point I want to argue with the Parliamentary Secretary, with your permission.
The Amendment which we have just disposed of affected the question of retrospective action. There arises this other point, which is partly relevant to that and partly relevant to Clauses which come hereafter. Although I would not give as much weight to it as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does, I understand the argument that there are people who would erect or improve cottages but for this particular condition of freeing them being applied. The difference between the Parliamentary Secretary and

myself is not that the point never arises, but that I think it arises so seldom—the hon. Gentleman's own figures support this—that it is not worth a major change of the law in order to accommodate those comparatively-few cases. So far, that is the only real argument adduced for the Bill.
Therefore, in the series of Amendments which we have put down, and which stand together, we sought to provide that there should be two ways of proceeding; that either the landlord should take the conditions of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, together with the grant of 50 per cent. applied under that Act—that is, the point of making it permissive by putting in "may"—or that he should take the conditions under the Housing Act, 1952, in which case he should take the grant under that Act.
What the Parliamentary Secretary seeks to do is to compel everybody, for the sake of the handful of cases concerned, to have the grants—which, after all, are 50 per cent. and involve hundreds of pounds—under the Hill Farming Act together with the conditions of the Housing Act; and thereby the landlord or farmer, or whoever is to do the job, could be said to get the best of all worlds. He would get all the grant under the Hill Farming Act, which is much more than the grant under the Housing Act, 1952. The difference between the Conservative Government today and the Labour Government that preceded them


is that we regarded this 'thing as of so much higher priority that we made much more public money available for it. The grant is much higher under our Act, but the conditions under the Housing Act are much less onerous.

4.45 p.m.

I believe that there are many landlords who, in order to have a happy labour force and to have men in their cottages and on their farms who are quite content, would prefer not to have to use the conditions of 'the 1952 Housing Act, which the Minister by this Bill seeks to bring into the hill farming sphere. They want the extra money which the Hill Farming Act, 1946, gives them, because, as you, Sir Rhys, will know from the Principality better than many people in the Committee, it is of peat importance to them and it is a great weight on the average hill farmer to have to do this kind of improvement.

These farmers require the money, but many of them do not want to accept the conditions. That they do not need to take the money, as apart from wanting to do so, is shown by the fact that the figures given yesterday toy the Minister of Agriculture to my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) reveal that many thousands of schemes have been already undertaken, many of which involve cottages and cottage grants and acceptance by the landlord of the conditions of the 1946 Act. In these circumstances, even assuming that there is something in the Parliamentary Secretary's philosophy, which he exaggerates, is it not ridiculous to be so rigid in approach that one refuses to accommodate, not only the views of the farm worker, but the views of the landlord, who is willing to accept all the conditions and all the money under the 1946 Act?

I was interested the other day to see in a farming journal that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) committed himself to the view that not only should there be a minimum period of protection, but that there should also be compulsory recourse to the magistrates' court. That ought to bring him into our Lobby in every Division. I have no doubt that in the last Division he voted contrary to what he said, but that, no doubt, was by accident, and

since I have now been able to point it out to him he can retrieve himself and join us on this occasion. What our proposal suggests does not go as far as the hon. Member went. It is simply that there should be an alternative choice for the landlord to exercise. It would mean that where both landlord and farm worker were happier with a choice, they should be able to make it.

I have moved this Amendment well knowing that, by itself, it would not achieve all our objectives, but there are many draftsmen ready to help the Minister on succeeding stages of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, without necessarily accepting the Amendment, will nevertheless be able to say that at the next stage of the Bill he will seek to put down forms of words in various parts of the Bill to secure to the landlord and to the farmer a choice between the grants and conditions of the 1952 Act and the grants and conditions of the 1946 Act. The landlord and the farmer can then make whichever choice suits them, and this would go a little way to soften our unhappy feelings about the Bill.

Mr. Nugent: I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not prepared to support the lead given so vigorously and with his usual warmth by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). The right hon. Gentleman probably has a suspicion as to the views of the Government, and so, no doubt, have his hon. Friends. I thought that they would get up and add a little weight to the rather airy arguments that the right hon. Gentleman has adduced.

Mr. Gooch: We have not finished yet.

Mr. Nugent: There may be arguments yet to come, I gather.

Mr. Brown: We want more ammunition from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Nugent: We have not had many arguments from the right hon. Gentleman. There has been the usual flow of invective, but not much of substance.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should wait until I get going. He would know what it was then.

Mr. Nugent: I have often had the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman in full flow.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Gentleman is getting touchy.

Mr. Nugent: Oh, no. I am merely amused.
The point put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is that farmers should not automatically have the full benefit of the Hill Farming Act grant if they wish to keep their cottages on the basis of service occupancy, but that if they wish to keep their cottages, or to have the new cottages which they build, on that basis, they should have the alternative of the 1952 Housing Act and the previous Acts that went before it.
This is a new point that the right hon. Gentleman has put. With some ingenuity he has managed to get the Amendments on the Order Paper, and he suspends his arguments from the peg of "shall" or "may. "He was good enough to explain the point beforehand, and the broad reply to his proposition is that the 1952 and 1946, and, I suppose, the 1938, Acts—quite a succession of them all hook together for this purpose—provide very useful grants, both for improvement purposes and for building new cottages, but would not, in our opinion, go far enough to meet the needs of hill farming and livestock rearing areas.
The costs of building in those areas are particularly high. It was for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) introduced their legislation on a basis which ensured that where these schemes, including the building of new cottages, were considered appropriate, they should not be handicapped for lack of funds. If we were to have recourse only to the 1952 Acts, which are of universal application, we should find that they would not fully cover these particular cases.
5.0 p.m.
I am sure that the Committee does not wish me to make another Second Reading speech, however strong the temptation may be, so I say simply that it is our view that the general structure of the industry is best served by the service occupancy. In the hill farming districts, in particular in remote districts where alternative houses would be particularly hard to find, and in the case of the shepherds, to whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major

McCallum) has often referred, it is of first importance to the man engaged that he can be provided with a cottage when he arrives; otherwise, clearly, he cannot be engaged. Therefore, service occupancy is right in these areas, and the full benefit of these grants should be available to assist the building and the reconditioning of cottages in those areas.
Although I recognise that the Amendment would provide some assistance in building or improving cottages in those areas it would not, in my view, provide sufficient. The improvement grants under the 1952 Acts are limited to a total grant of £400 or 50 per cent. of the improvement. Very often in those distant areas the cost of improvement is a great deal more than £800, and that might mean that the total value of the grant would be only, perhaps, 20per cent. or 30 per cent. of the total cost of improvement.
On the other hand, for the building of new cottages the 1952 Act provides a very valuable grant on the basis of an annual payment, but it is only an annual payment, and, valuable as it may be, it is not as valuable as the capital sum which is paid under the Hill Farming Act. As in the case of improvements, so, in the case of new cottage building, the financial grant under the 1952 Acts would not be sufficient to meet the purposes both sides of the Committee have in mind, the only difference between us being about the conditions regarding occupancy, the object of which is to ensure that we have sufficient housing accommodation for the farm workers in those areas and sufficient housing accommodation of a good standard. For these reasons I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Mr. G. Brown: I am very disappointed at the hon. Gentleman's reply. He did not seem to address himself at all to the points I made. As to what he said about my hon. Friends not supporting me, I would point out to him that we are in this difficulty: that there is to be a debate in the House at 7 o'clock, which will be of considerable interest to many hon. Members, and the only reason we are not deploying our arguments at greater length is the desire to meet the general convenience of hon. Members. In my view, which I hold very strongly, it is very unfair that a Bill of such importance as this should be hurried through in such


a very short time. The fact that we are not speaking in greater numbers is due to our desire to meet the general convenience. However, if we are sufficiently provoked a sufficient number of times by the hon. Gentleman I can assure him that, even at the risk of our both being in trouble with the usual channels, my hon. Friends and I may be tempted to run that risk.
However, as the next Amendment is of rather greater immediate importance and value we do not propose to lose valuable minutes by going through the Division Lobby on this one. I am willing to withdraw this one, while making a substantial protest to the Minister for not having given way on this Amendment, as he could have done without doing the slightest harm to his Bill or to the views he holds. It would have helped a number of people. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I think that the next two Amendments could be taken together.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 1 to 3, and to insert:
except that the period in that subsection, for the purposes of this Act, shall be increased to thirteen weeks.
I do not suppose there is a single hon. Member on the other side of the Committee, however misguided, who does not want genuinely to provide that the man occupying the cottage, and his dependants, shall have the longest possible notice of the need to get out that it is possible to give them consistent with the interests of the industry. I am prepared to assume that that is the desire of everybody opposite. I do not see how anybody can possibly argue that four weeks is long enough notice.
I have had experience of this subject going back to 1937 or 1936, and all good employers gave longer than four weeks. If the landlord goes to the county court—and, as I have said so many times, in practice they mostly do, to protect themselves from any action for trespass—it takes longer than four weeks anyway from the beginning to the end of the legal operation. When they are, as most of them, in my experience, were, decent

men, understanding what it would be like if they themselves were to be turned out on to the street with nowhere to go, they give longer notice.
I have said many times, and so has my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), that the whole problem of the tied cottage does not arise because of the conduct of the vast majority of good employers and good workers. It arises because of an awkward minority of bad employers, and, I suppose, an awkward minority of farm workers, too. In this Bill we are limiting ourselves to four weeks' notice. When we lay down a law we know that when minima are established they very quickly become the maxima. It is one of the unfortunate facts. We are laying down what will become the maximum for all the good people in the industry.

Mr. J. B. Godber: No.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. In my view this will be the case.
A landlord used to say, "I really must be decent in this case. There is nothing laid down, but there is the good code." Now he will say, "It is laid down in an Act of Parliament. If I give four weeks' notice, that is all I need do. "Even good men will now feel that four weeks has the sanction of Parliament and that, therefore, it is the measure of what a good man ought to do. Yet four weeks is hopelessly too little.
I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) when he puts his case. I always listen to him with great interest. I disagree far more often than I agree with him, but that does not take away from my interest in what he has to say. I quite understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's problem of the hill farmer and his cottage in an isolated place, and how important the cottage is to the economy of the hill farm. However, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, must see my point, that the occupier of that cottage is in a worse position than anybody else. The argument cuts both ways. Four weeks is a very short time in which to find accommodation.
Major McCallum: In an area such as the hon. Gentleman is speaking of there is never a question of a man being left


with only four weeks in which to get out. He goes to another job of his own accord. The employer does not put him out.

Mr. Brown: If he has died and gone to heaven, which is where all farm workers go—whether all farmers also go there is a disputed point—he is not available to go to another job. We are speaking of the protection granted to the dependants and in their case the other point does not arise. They have to get out, and all the difficulties I have mentioned arise.
If the Minister wants to lay down a minimum, which is certain to become a maximum, he had better lay down a tolerable, not necessarily generous but reasonable one. Four weeks is much the least that could possibly be given, it is less than what is commonly given and it is less than the time which would elapse if one went to the county court under the present arrangements. So far the Parliamentary Secretary has defended lifting bodily from the 1952 Act the conditions there on the ground that that was general housing legislation applicable to all housing cases and not limited to the special case of hill farming. That may have been a valid argument, but if he uses it now, though I do not suppose he will, he will see that it lends point to our Amendment.
Four weeks may or may not be right for the gas, the railway or the water employee who has a cottage in a town. It may or may not be long enough in Guildford or in Belper when there are other chances to get alternative accommodation. But here we are dealing with the limited case of men living in isolated areas who have to go some distance, often miles, to get other accommodation instead of the next street or somewhere else in the same ward. This point may well have been justified in the general Housing Act of 1952, but it is not necessarily justified in this Measure. This is a separate class of case and something more is required.
He who sups with the devil must use along spoon. If I am to have any part in the nefarious practices of the Parliamentary Secretary, I shall need a long spoon if I am to keep out of danger. However, he having carried the Bill so far, we are prepared to try to sup with the devil on this Clause and to achieve

something out of the wreckage for the workers and their dependants.
I make a really strong appeal. Let us even at this stage leave partisan considerations aside. Let us put right this unhappy feature of no consultation with the farm workers. Let the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is something which would have been urged upon him most vigorously by the National Union of Agricultural Workers, the Scottish Farm Servants' Union and the Transport and General Workers' Union, with both the latter of which I am connected, and for the former of which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) can speak. If there had been consultations it is likely that something would have been conceded. I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment or to tell us that he will consider how far he can go to meet it. I am sure that he will lose nothing if he does that, and he will soften a lot of the hard feeling.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said that the 13 weeks would be the maximum.

Mr. Percy Wells: Four weeks.

Mr. Baldwin: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that at the end of 13 weeks the tenant of the cottage would leave. Our experience is that the man who does not go at the end of four weeks is no more likely to go at the end of 13. I mentioned the case on the Second Reading of the Bill where the tenants of two service cottages had six months' notice to give up their accommodation on 25th September last. Those men are still in the cottages. They are holding up the completion of the sale of a farm because they will not get out. I believe that the parties have gone to court this week to get possession. I do not know the result, but it is possible that an eviction notice may be served. Then we shall have one more case added to the string of terrible cases of summary eviction of which we have heard so much on so many occasions.
Though I do not agree to support the Amendment, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether an


alteration could be made so that at the end of four weeks the owner of the cottage, or the farmer, has to apply to the county court for possession. Then it would probably be 13 weeks before the man would go. I believe that there is some difficulty about that because, by doing something of the sort, we turn a service tenancy into a real tenancy. That is a difficulty, but if there is a way out I am sure that all normal reasonable farmers will agree to it. I should like to see a provision inserted so that we can avoid the gibe about summary eviction which comes so often from hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Gooch: I should like to express my personal pleasure at the semi-conversion of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have been campaigning against tied cottages for a good many years. I have always regarded a member of the Conservative Party as being the upholder of the principle of tied cottages who would never give way one inch. Now we have two remarkable cases before us. There is certainly a rift somewhere. The opinion of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) has been quoted, and I want to refer to it at length later. Now we have heard the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). He has gone a very large part of the way towards meeting the objection we have to the tied cottage. He has said that he would not put anybody out of a cottage without first taking him to court. He has admitted half our case.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk in this way about the need for altering the law so as to prevent summary eviction, I welcome them as recruits. I am very glad to hear the opinions they have expressed. I hope that they will press those opinions upon the Minister. I have never said that all owners of farm tied cottages are wrong and bad. I have a good opinion of many hundreds of owners of tied cottages. I could quote case after case where owners have allowed tenants to remain long after their period of service on the farm has ended, and where they have allowed the families of men who have died to remain in cottages for years after the death of the farm worker.
I want to pay my tribute to the humanity of many thousands of owners of tied cottages throughout the land. We

are only legislating against the few bad ones, and there really are some bad ones. The hon. Member for Leominster has asked me time and again to quote cases. I have quoted cases and when I quoted instances upstairs in the Standing Committee of the number of summary convictions which are taking place, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government made what I considered to be a slanderous remark, when he referred to the case that I made as a fake case. It was not. I am still waiting for an apology from the right hon. Gentleman for calling me a liar that day. I feel it very keenly, because the case was brought out by the facts which I presented to the Committee. I hope that one day the right hon. Gentleman will express regret that he referred to me in the terms which he used.
The four weeks proposed in this Bill are not a long enough period. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the suggestion made in the Amendment and provide for a longer period which will help the tenant to put his own affairs in order, and, where the breadwinner has died and left a widow and family, will give his dependants reasonable time to look for other accommodation. That is not asking too much. I again congratulate hon. Members opposite that they are coming along nicely in this matter. One of these days I shall expect to find a Tory Government introducing a Bill to abolish tied cottages.

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) speaks with such vehemence on this subject that he often runs away with his own common sense. It perturbed me when he said that, because of the fact that under this Bill the owner will have the power and the right to turn out a tenant after four weeks, the good farmers will, therefore, make use of that power and will adhere strictly to that period. Quite clearly, the right hon. Gentleman has little knowledge of the minds of good farmers.

Mr. G. Brown: If the hon. Member wishes to refer to my common sense and to criticise me, he ought first to listen to what I say. I did not say what the hon. Member attributes to me. I said that the difficulty was that so many people, not knowing what is the definition of good practice and who have hitherto given a lengthy period of notice, will now


turn to this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament and will see that a period of four weeks is provided. They will then say that that is the test of what is good practice. The hon. Member is entitled to deal with that point, but he is not entitled to attribute to me something which I did not say in order to make it easier for himself.

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman has a remarkably short memory. He said that the minimum would become the maximum in any case. Those were his actual words, and it is abundantly clear that that is what he meant. In fact, nothing of the kind will happen. Many of the good farmers will undoubtedly continue, as in the past, to treat the tenants with the utmost consideration. Farmers and farm workers work together to an extent which many people who are not members of that community do not understand. In 99 cases out of 100 fanners act towards workers and their families with every consideration. It is not right that the right hon. Gentleman should cast aspersions, as he did, on the name of good farmers.

Mr. P. Wells: I wish to support the Amendment. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) mentioned good farmers. If we were dealing only with them we should not be so concerned about what is implied in the period of four weeks which is provided in this Bill. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that to provide for four weeks is tantamount to giving permission to summarily evict.
I should like to take up the point which was made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). If he really means what he said—that the application to the court should not be made if four weeks' notice has not been given—it is something which we might consider very favourably. But I am sure that, with his knowledge of this industry, the Minister must realise that this provision for four weeks' notice could work very unjustly. I hope, therefore, that he will pay attention to what has been suggested by the hon. Member for Leominster and perhaps find himself able to accept the Amendment.

Major McCallum: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) continues to raise a point which I wish to

try to repudiate. At the outset, I invite him to come to my area one of these days. I should be delighted to entertain him and to show him the kind of area to which I am referring. It is a hill farming area, and I should like to bring the debate back to hill farming as distinct from other kinds of farming.
When a stockman or shepherd dies and has to be replaced, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whereabouts in the hill farming area in Scotland he has ever heard of a case in which the dependants of the dead man are put out of their house, except where they are put out by the owner and accommodated in another cottage which he himself has found because he wants that particular cottage for the accommodation of a new shepherd or stockman.

Mr. G. Brown: My point is that if it has never happened—though I can produce a case, but we will not go into that now—why provide for it to happen in the Bill?

Major McCallum: The cottage in question may be required for a succeeding shepherd and stockman. Whereas the employer can find other accommodation for the dependants, he requires the cottage for his new man. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary resists the Amendment and retains the four weeks, it will give a certain force to the employer to enable him to have the cottage for the shepherd, even if he voluntarily finds other accommodation for the dependants of the man who, as the right hon. Member for Belper said, has gone to heaven. That is the whole difference between what happens in hill farming and what may be happening in other forms of farming of which I have no knowledge.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I think that everyone will agree with what the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said about the desire to give the maximum possible time to any farm worker who is leaving his job. That was in the minds of all of us when we considered what to do with regard to the 1952 Housing Act. One of the principal criticisms against the service cottage system has been one which the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch)


has often repeated—that summary eviction was probable. When we introduced the 1952 Housing Act, the Government made a real attempt to meet this very genuine criticism and by so doing try to bridge the gulf between those who feel very strongly on the matter and those who do not.
But the real yardstick to be applied here is a twin one. We have to take account of what is necessary for the proper running of the farm as well as the question of the notice which the man should be given. During our consideration of what is now the 1952 Housing Act, four weeks were considered to be a reasonable time to give to meet the criticism relating to summary eviction. I think that hon. Members opposite will agree that we have made a step forward in that direction.

Mr. G. Brown: No.

Mr. Snadden: The interests concerned were quite in agreement that four weeks were reasonable.

Mr. Brown: What interests?

Mr. Snadden: I have no recollection of the National Union of Agricultural Workers opposing it.

Mr. Brown: Or being asked.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: Yes, I am talking about the 1952 Housing Act. We have maintained, and I think with some justification, that four weeks is a reasonable and suitable time to settle upon, so that a farm is not upset by an unduly long term of notice. The principle was agreed and carried in this House under the Housing Acts, and one could argue that in relation to hill farms the need is even greater than on the low ground—

ROYAL ASSENT

Whereupon The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, The Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act, 1954.
2. Licensing (Seamen's Canteens) Act, 1954.
3. Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1954.
4. Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.
5. National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland Act, 1954.

Orders of the Day — HILL FARMING BILL

Again considered in Committee.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: As I was explaining, this period of four weeks was arrived at after considering what would be a reasonable period to give to a farm worker so that he would have a reasonable chance to find alternative work while, at the same time, not upsetting the proper running of a farm. That was the yardstick used when the 1952 Housing Act was under consideration, and there was a considerable measure of agreement about it. I have no recollection of any representations being made against that period.
I believe that there is a greater need on the hill farms to consider the period, because whereas on farms on the low ground there is a larger proportion of stockmen or shepherds, there are not so many workers of the ploughman category. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult for the farmer on livestock-rearing land if we were to accept so long a period as that contained in the Amendment, namely, 13 weeks.
Obviously, one can envisage circumstances where the working of a holding would be so seriously upset as to interfere with food production. Therefore, we stick to the period which we decided to


put into the Housing Bill. Indeed, we feel that the reasons for having the same period in this Bill are even greater, and because of that, I regret that we are unable to accept the Amendment.
Mr. T. Fraser: I am sure we are all very sorry that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has not been more forthcoming in his reply to this discussion. It has been made clear from both sides of the Committee that we all recognise this great human problem. The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that, in addition to these four weeks, there should be a provision under statute that the farmer should thereafter go to the county court if the worker was still in the cottage. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has said nothing at all in regard to that suggestion.
My right hon. Friend made a powerful case in moving the Amendment, to which the Joint Under-Secretary of State has most inadequately replied. His reason for rejecting the Amendment was, shortly—and I think I can say this without doing him an injustice—that if four weeks was right under the 1952 Act in relation to the occupation of agricultural houses generally, it could not be said to be inadequate in relation to hill farms.
He went on to say that the difficulty in hill areas was greater than elsewhere, the inference being that in those areas the period should be shorter rather than longer than that in agriculture generally; but, in reply to an earlier discussion this afternoon, his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said that it was exceedingly difficult to find alternative accommodation in the hill areas. It is for that very reason that we on this side of the Committee want to give this added protection to the shepherds who occupy these properties.
We take the view that, no matter what period is written into this Bill, in the vast

majority of cases when a shepherd leaves the employment of one farm to take up employment elsewhere, he will immediately vacate the one cottage and go to another. Webelieve that in most cases where the shepherd has died and has left a widow and children, they will not be turned out after a period of four weeks, but will be allowed to remain in the cottage for a much longer period, and that in very many cases the farmer will be able to provide them with alternative accommodation. That is what is normally done.

In these circumstances, we do not see why under this Clause we should not give some protection to the farm worker or the widow who happens to occupy a cottage owned by a less considerate farmer. Indeed, that is all we are doing. We are not concerned with the good owners or with the considerate farmers. As I have said so many times before, relations between employer and employee are good, and we ought not to do anything to cause any worsening of the situation. Our view is that the whole Bill tends to do just that. In any case, the workers in the industry feel so keenly on this question that we are bound to express their view.

I only wish that the Joint Under-Secretary had said that he would have a look at the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Leominster or, in reply to my right hon. Friend, had said, "We agree that there is something in the case which you have put and we shall have a look at it between now and the Report stage to see whether we can do something by then." But he has not been forthcoming, and if that is the Government's last word we have no choice but to divide the Committee on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 244.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[5.50 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Baldwin, A. E.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Banks, Col. C.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Alport, C. J. M.
Barber, Anthony
Birch, Nigel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Barlow, Sir John
Bishop, F. P.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Baxter, A. B.
Black, C. W.


Arbuthnot, John
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bossom, Sir A. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bowen, E. R.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Baker, P. A. D.
Bell, Ronald (Bunks, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bennett, F. M (Reading, N.)
Braine, B. R.




Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Osborne, C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hollis, M. C.
Page, R. G.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hope, Lord John
Perkins, Sir Robert


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hopkinson, Right Hon. Henry
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bullard, D. G.
Horobin, I. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Burden, F. F. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pitman, I. J.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Campbell, Sir David
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Carr, Robert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchinson, James (Scotstoun)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Channon, H.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Redmayne, M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cole, Norman
Jennings, Sir Roland
Renton, D. L. M.


Colegate, W. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robertson, Sir David


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Kaberry, D.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kerr, H. W.
Robson-Brown, W.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lambton, Viscount
Roper, Sir Harold


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crouch, R. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Russell, R. S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Scott, R. Donald


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Deedes, W. F.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Shepherd, William


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Donner, Sir P. W.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Longden, Gilbert
Soames, Capt. C.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Speir, R. M.


Drewe, Sir C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
McAdden, S. J.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McCallum, Major D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stevens, G. P.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fell, A.
McKibbin, A. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Storey, S.


Fisher, Nigel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Studholme, H. G.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Fort, R.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Teeling, W.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Gammans, L. D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Marples, A. E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Glover, D.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Godber, J. B.
Maude, Angus
Vane, W. M. F.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maudling, R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wade, D. W.


Gower, H. R.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Molson, A. H. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Grimond, J.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe. C. E.
Watkinson, H. A.


Harden, J. R. E.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Neave, Airey
Wellwood, W.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nicholls, Harmar
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hay, John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Heath, Edward
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Wills, G.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Odey, G. W.



Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Oakshott.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.








NOES


Albu, A. H.
Hannan, W
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hardy, E. A.
Pearson, A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hargreaves, A.
Peart, T. F.


Andersen, Frank (Whitehaven)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Hastings, S.
Porter, G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Healey, Denis (Lewis S.E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pryde, D. J.


Bartley, P.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Rankin, John


Bence, C. R.
Holman, P.
Reeves, J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Holmes, Horace
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Beswick, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bing. G. H. C.
Hoy, J. H.
Richards, R.


Blackburn, F.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shackleton, E, A. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Short, E. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon, D. P. T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon, George (Belper)
Jager, George (Goole)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Burke, W. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Keenan, W.
Snow, J. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Kenyon, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Clunie, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Corbet, Mrs Freda
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Cove, W. G.
Lewis, Arthur
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lindgren, G. S
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Crosland, C. A. R.
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacColl, J. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Daines, P.
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon Robert (Morpeth)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E)


Delargy, H. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Thornton, E.


Dodds, N. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Timmons, J.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mason, Roy
Tomney, F.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mayhew, C. P.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Usborne, H. C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Messer, Sir F.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, T. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Monslow, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E.
Morley, R.
West, D. G.


Fienburgh, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Finch, H. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mort, D. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Follick, M.
Moyle, A.
Wigg, George


Foot, M. M.
Mulley, F. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Murray, J. D.
Willey, F. T.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Nally, W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Glanville, James
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Gooch, E. G.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, C. F.
Padley, W. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wyatt, W. L.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Yates, V. F.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Pannell, Charles



Hamilton, W. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Wallace.

6.0 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Thomas Williams: My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) described this Bill as a "dirty little Bill," and I think that was a very apt description. Of course, this Clause is the Bill. I say it is a dirtylittle Bill, despite the claims made for it by the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. It is a Bill based upon prejudice. It is utterly mischievous and, as I will try to show, it is certainly unnecessary.
Without rhyme or reason, this Bill is deliberately weighting the scales against the agricultural worker. I am astonished that either the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland, both kindly men, should allow themselves to be associated with a Bill of this description but, once they have brought in the Bill, I am even more astonished that they have not put in an appearance but have left the conduct of affairs to their two Parliamentary Secretaries.
They have completely closed their eyes to the humiliation and misery which may fall on some workers, their wives and families as a result of this Measure. They say, in effect, that it is not for the court to decide where the greatest hardship lies, or whether the fanner was right or whether he was wrong. It is the farmer, good, bad or indifferent, who is to determine when the worker's goods or chattels, if any, must be put on the roadside. It is no use hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Leominster, Dumfries or Norfolk, South-West telling me that there are only a few cases of eviction. I know all that. But any is too many, if the farmer is wrong and the agricultural worker is right.
There is nothing in the Bill which will determine whether the worker left wrongly, whether the employer dismissed him wrongly or anything related to the facts of the departure of the worker from the farm. The hon. Member for Leominster said on Second Reading that all farmers are not angels. I could say the same about agricultural workers. Indeed, I could say the same about Members of Parliament. But if the Govern-

ment deliberately place all the power in the hands of one side to a bargain, leaving the other side helpless, that is too bad.
While the farm worker knows that at the end of four weeks, according to the terms of the Bill, he can be dismissed and his goods can be placed on the roadside, it is possible for the less decent farmer to exercise so much pressure on him that the relationship between the two may deteriorate. He may be dismissed summarily because he refuses to submit to the pressure put upon him.
If the worker is at fault he can, of course, be sacked and he can be evicted from his house. It is possible that in certain circumstances such an action could be justifiable. But if the farmer is at fault—wholly at fault—and the worker has fulfilled his every obligation, the farmer can nevertheless still dismiss the worker and have him evicted from his house.
Is there any human justice in all the power being vested on one side? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said the Government are leaving existing tenants, where improvement schemes had been carried out: they are to remain in occupation. He said that the humanity of that problem had therefore been met. But all subsequent tenants are left to the inhumanities which might arise. Sitting tenants are to remain where they are until they depart through old age or for any other reason, but all other service occupants are to be left to the inhumanity which the Bill brings.
This change will certainly help the less decent farmer to inflict moral intimidation upon his workers. If I know the National Farmers' Union leaders at all well, I think they are as hostile to that sort of action as are we on these benches. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government consulted the National Farmers' Union or whether the National Farmers' Union made a request to the Government. If they consulted the National Farmers' Union, as distinct from a request received from that organisation, why did they not consult the National Union of Agricultural Workers? I could understand both Ministers calling for the president and secretary of the National Farmers' Union and the president and secretary of the National Union


of Agricultural Workers and consulting both sides, singly or jointly, in an effort to find proper safeguards for both the farmer and the agricultural worker—to find safeguards which would avoid abuse or injustice against either side.
I know how difficult it could be for a farmer, particularly on the hillside, to have a tenant remaining in occupation for a very long period when the tenant does not work for him, but I can also appreciate the difficulties of the agricultural worker who is faced with eviction although he has fulfilled his every condition of employment.
If the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland wanted to make a change, one would have thought, in 1954, that the change would have been forward. But not with this Government. We never expect this Government to go forward. In fact, they have been legislating backwards ever since they took office. They denationalised steel and road transport and committed grave injustices to all sorts of people, including miners in my Parliamentary division. This is another step backward instead of forward, just as one might expect from this Government.
If the Minister wanted to make a change, I could understand him consulting both unions, bearing in mind the human problems which are inevitably involved and trying to see whether proper safeguards could be found against injustices affecting either the farmer or the agricultural worker. We do not want to see the farmer in a position in which he cannot do his job and cannot produce food. We want to see the farmers getting on with the job as fast as they can.
But not this Government; they do not have consultations. They take the easy course, the one-sided course, and then they plead from the Front Bench that it is all in the interests of the worker. Well, it is said that this is a weary world but there are some chairs in it. The Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland have occupied two of the chairs, and they have taken the easy course with regard to this Bill. We are dealing with a Hill Farming Bill, as the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) has reminded us on several occasions, which provides a 50 per cent. grant for any one or any number

of improvements contained in the Schedule to the 1946 Act, whether it be for farm buildings, a farm house or a house for an employee. Is it too much, therefore, for those who are sitting on these benches, at all events, to ask that the agricultural worker shall be given, not better, but the same safeguards against summary eviction as the Rent Restrictions Acts give to every other worker in the land?
I should have thought that the isolated worker on the hills required more rather than less protection. There are fewer opportunities in the remote hills, as the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll would readily admit, of obtaining alternative accommodation and lodgings, or for the worker about to be dispossessed to contact the housing authorities and other social bodies which might help him in this very human problem.
This Bill does not act on those lines at all. It just goes back seven or eight years—and Bob's your uncle so far as the Government are concerned. I repeat that the Bill is one-sided, it is wholly prejudiced against the worker, and no substantial thought had been given to it before the Government brought it to the House. As for its mischievousness, the Hill Farming Act has been in operation for well over seven years, and, as far as I can recall, the number of complaints has been infinitesimal. Then why throw this ball of discord into the centre?
Every hon. Member knows that the essential ingredients of successful farming must be good will and team work on the farm, and the team spirit is the one thing that really matters. Will this sword of Damocles help to bring good will or the team spirit? I fear not. We need more men on the hills if the improvements are to give us the extra food that they alone can produce. Will the prospect, no matter how remote—and I do not exaggerate—of being evicted after four weeks encourage a man or woman to run up the hillside? Surely there is the danger that the opposite may happen and that the purpose of the Hill Farming Act may be frustrated.
This I regard as a very mischievous Measure, and I submit that the Bill, and Clause 1 in particular, is wholly unnecessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and my right


hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) demanded on Second Reading some evidence to justify this Bill. Practically none was forthcoming. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said that all he could find was negative evidence, and not too much of that. I sympathise with him, because he had an appallingly distasteful task, and he did his best. He gave us the figures for England and Wales and also for Scotland, showing where potential schemes were not proceeded with for one reason or another, and he said that they were relatively few—only 50 in England and Wales.

6.15 p.m.

How does that compare with the positive evidence against changing the 1946 Act? I have the figures, given by the Ministry of Agriculture, telling us that schemes approved, approved in principle and those under consideration for England and Wales number 6,436, and only 50 potential schemes were withdrawn. In some cases it might have been the house, in some cases it might have been the cost, or whatever we will, but of 6,436 schemes only 50 were withdrawn. Where is the justification, therefore, for changing the terms of the 1946 Act?

Altogether, in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland there have been no fewer than 8,232 schemes of improvement either approved, approved in principle, or under consideration. Of this number, less than 100 potential schemes have been withdrawn. Only one scheme in 128, according to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, was withdrawn. Yet the Government think that that is justification for producing this Bill. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture made a bold case as to what had happened as a result of the passing of the 1952 Housing Act. But that is not the Hill Farming Act, and it is the Hill Farming Act with which we are concerned at the moment.

The Hill Farming Act was a good one, and farmers on the hills all over England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have taken advantage of it. If all the schemes are completed, no fewer than 5,790,000 acres of land will have been dealt with. If anything has justified itself, it is the Hill Farming Act of 1946, and all that this miserable Government can do is to come and change it in this House.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave us some financial details of the scheme, and the total of the schemes approved, approved in principle or under consideration was £22¼ million. If farmers had been hostile to the Act, despite Section 10, or if they had been afraid of the Act, including Section 10, should we have had £22¼ million worth of work on hand? Certainly not. That seems to indicate that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that Act. On the contrary, there is solid evidence that schemes are still rolling in, and that the Act is fulfilling all our expectations.

Mr. Godber: I am seeking information. Can the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion of the figures which he has given relate to cottages and what proportion to other parts of development?

Mr. Williams: The Minister did not give those figures in reply to the Question. These are merely the number of individual schemes and the acreage covered by them.

Mr. Godber: So they prove nothing.

Mr. Williams: They only prove that 5,790,000 acres of land are being improved; that is all they do. If the hon. Member is anxious to know the percentage of the expense of housing in Scotland, it is 18. The average for England and Wales and Scotland is 8 per cent., and for England and Wales it is less than that average because the area of such land in Scotland is far greater than that in England; but the schemes are there, the area is there and the money is there, too.
The hon. Member for Dumfries, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. Baker) and the hon. Member for Leominster said that the Bill will encourage, the building of new houses and reconditioning. I hope that it will, but there is nothing to prevent those who are going to have improvement schemes from building houses today, with the guarantee of a Government grant of 50 per cent. towards the cost. That is not an inconsiderable amount. I cannot imagine anyone taking a job on a hillside in a remote area merely to get a house and then leaving to find another job. After all, the process of law can already operate under Section 10 of the 1946 Act; it can be invoked and can be very speedy


indeed. Therefore, there is no excuse for houses not being either built or reconditioned under the existing terms of the Act.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard), in an article in the "Farmers' Weekly" on 5th February, said:
I have always felt that this wrangle over tied houses need not go on.…

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Williams: It seems to me that the law ought to be changed"—
now let us have the "Hear, hears" from hon. Members opposite—
so as to give a minimum period of notice and also to make application to a magistrates' court essential.
That is precisely what the 1946 Act does. Yet three days or so before the hon. Member's article appeared in the "Farmers' Weekly" he voted for this Bill, which makes it unnecessary for a magistrates' court to be called in. The hon. Member voted against the 1946 Act by voting in favour of the Bill, which means, in effect, that he does not believe in practice what he wrote for the "Farmers' Weekly" last week.

Dr. H. Morgan: He got paid for that.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friends will appreciate that it is sometimes as unfair to hit a man when he is up as to hit him when he is down.
The hon. Member followed up his vote last week by another vote this week, when hon. Friends of mine on this side tried to avoid the Bill becoming retrospective—in other words, preserving access to the court in cases where the money has already been spent. It will be interesting to know how the hon. Member votes in the next Division, because the Clause makes it unnecessary to apply to the court, while the existing Act makes it necessary to do so. If the hon. Member really believes what he wrote, we on this side will be augmented by one in the Lobby on the next Division.
I do not want to prolong the agony, but I am bound to repeat that unless the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can give better evidence and better reasons for changing the law of 1946 eight years later, my hon. Friends will not only vote

against the Clause, but we will vote with enthusiasm, because we believe that it is a prejudiced Bill, utterly mischievous, utterly unnecessary, and something that ought not to have been descended to by this Conservative, or, indeed, any other, Government.

Mr. Nugent: I should say straight away that in the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that no one had disputed the success of the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) seemed to think there was some doubt about that. We all agree that it is good and that the progress is good. Our only qualification is whether there is a deterrent effect in the present provisions with regard to grants for building new cottages and improving old ones.
In much of his argument the right hon. Gentleman laid about himself freely, but I shall be pleased to meet one or two of the general points that he made. Although the figures which he obtained from my right hon. Friend in answer to his Parliamentary Question indicate the general progress, and although to some extent they are a guide to the right hon. Gentleman's point that farmers and landowners had not been deterred, the total figure is not a complete guide. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish the exact position to be given.
Since 1952 in England and Wales, and since 1950 in Scotland, farmers and landowners, in making their applications, have been asked to include the building of the cottage in the scheme irrespective of whether they intended to apply for the grant, and to decide whether they wished to apply for the grant only when the cottage was actually completed and at the moment when the grant would operate. This means that for all schemes which were included in these figures, which had not been completed to the point of the cottage being finished, we would not yet know whether the farmer had intended to come in under the provisions of the previous Act. That would cover the schemes approved in principle, of which there were 886, and also the schemes under consideration, of which there were over 1,000. I make the point for purposes of accuracy. It does not detract


from the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I am sure he would like to have the actual figure.
The right hon. Gentleman inquired what consultations there had been with the National Farmers' Union. My answer when I was asked before was that the National Farmers' Union had made representations to the Government from time to time ever since we assumed office in 1951. We had stated quite clearly that we intended to make this provision, and it was well known to everybody. It was not unnatural, therefore, that the National Farmers' Union made representations, the last of which was in the middle of last summer.
It is fair to say in that respect that, with regard to the farm workers' unions, they well knew that we intended to make this revision of the law, and therefore it was open to them to make any representations that they felt necessary in the same way as the National Farmers' Union did; and we would, of course, have been only too ready to hear what they had to say and to consult them generally about it.

Mr. Gooch: I dispute that.

Mr. Nugent: They have not done that. Had they asked for such an opportunity to make representations and meet us, we would have been glad to grant it. Furthermore, the Bill was published last November, when it had its First Reading, and we have had nothing from them since then.

Mr. Gooch: The hon. Gentlemanknows very well that a few months ago I put a Question to his right hon. Friend asking what consultations he had had with the National Union of Agricultural Workers on policy. The Minister replied giving me a date when he saw some of us, which was quite true. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we did not talk about this Hill Farming Bill that day. He gave no warning that the Government were introducing a Bill of this character. When he talks about having conversations with the workers' representatives, they were on very limited lines.

Mr. P. Wells: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not think that, having agreed to meet the farmers and the

Country Landowners' Association, he might then have invited the workers' unions?

Mr. Nugent: It is plain that everybody knew it was our intention to introduce this amending legislation, and we would have been only too pleased to hear any representations.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Minister would not have paid attention to them.

Mr. Nugent: Does the hon. Member wish to say something?

Mr. Fraser: I said in an undertone—I most readily repeat it from the Box—that the hon. Gentleman has made perfectly clear that the Government had made up their mind on the presentation of the Bill. They would have listened to my hon. Friend's union had it asked to be received in deputation, but whatever was said to the Minister would have come in one ear and gone out of the other, because the Government's mind was made up.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I can only suppose that the hon. Gentleman is defining the principles that guided him when he was in the Government.

Mr. Fraser: On the contrary.

Mr. Nugent: They certainly have not guided us.
I straight away agree with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the National Farmers'Union have made it quite plain that they are not in favour of any sort of abuse of the position of the farmer vis-à-vis the worker in regard to the tied cottage, but they have done what they can in a manner which has had quite a valuable effect.
In this matter we have to face the dilemma—which is well known to the right hon. Gentleman—of equating the practical necessities of the industry, on the one hand, with the human considerations of the personal hardship to the farmer and the farm worker, on the other.

Mr. T. Williams: In an equitable manner.

Mr. Nugent: We have here the question whether any grants of public money should be made for the purpose either of


improving or building farm cottages which will then be used for a service occupancy as opposed to tenancy. That is really the issue between us, and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will be the first to recognise that. We are not discussing the general field of the tied cottage; the right hon. Gentleman and his Government had to recognise the practical necessities of it like the rest of us.
Do let us be clear about this. We are discussing a relatively narrow issue. On the general principle we really cannot disagree. I quite agree with a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) earlier in the debate on Clause 1 that, in the interests of the worker and his dependants, all should want to give the longest possible notice. I think that it has been acknowledged on all sides that, almost invariably, the farmer does treat a worker who is leaving his place with humanity and sympathy, and does give him time to find another place and another house, but our difficulty goes beyond that. I also agree that, normally, good employers do go to the county court if and when they have a farm worker who will not leave the cottage, and that it is very rare indeed—and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) I think confirms that—to find a case where the pressure of summary eviction is resorted to.
The problem really concerns only the exceptional case. I say at once that I entirely sympathise with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) in his feeling that people should go to the county court. I am bound to say that I would not do anything else, and in practice I have waited months and months for a cottage in order to give the man a chance to get out. I think that we are all moved by the same humanitarian considerations.
We have to consider the extent to which the law can assist us in this matter, and my belief—and that of my right hon. Friend and the Government—is that if, by extending the statutory safeguards of the worker, a long period—perhaps three or four months—became the general rule, we should then so interfere with the necessities of the industry that we should be doing more harm than good.
This is the general problem of the tied cottage. We know perfectly well that

when a man moves into a job he expects a cottage to go into, and if it is not there he will not take the job. That is the general necessity for the tied cottage system, and I am glad to think that, in the very large generality of cases, the farmer behaves with humanity and will give the man many months if and when he has to give him notice. But to create this statutory safeguard and try to extend its scope would gradually make it the rule instead of the exception—

Mr. T. Williams: Hear, hear.

Mr. Nugent: —so that when the individual man ceased his employment he could, instead of vacating a cottage, say "I shall stay until a court order comes." That would completely interfere with the working of the industry and with the individual working of many farms.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is there any evidence of it?

Mr. Nugent: No, there is not, because it does not arise. The position now is that the farm worker knows that when his employment terminates, he vacates the cottage, and the new worker knows that he will come into a cottage when he starts work.

Mr. Gooch: rose—

Mr. Nugent: Perhaps the hon. Member will excuse me for a moment. If we have a safeguard which will mean that what I have stated becomes the general rule, it will interfere with the whole industry. We think, therefore, that it is right to amend the law here to bring the cottages into line with the general practice.

Mr. Gooch: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary definitely created the impression that the farms cannot be run without tied cottages, but is it not a fact that hundreds of farms are run efficiently without them?

Mr. Nugent: No, I think I said it is a practical necessity, and in the last Government the tied cottage principle was continued. I am not making a point of it—it just is so. In our view, that principle applies in this limited field of hill farming and livestock-rearing areas.
I reject completely the right hon. Gentleman's accusation that we are either obstructive or lacking in humanity in what we are doing here. We feel that


there is a deterrent effect in the requirment that a grant can only be given for building a new, or improving an existing, cottage if the landowner agrees to create a tenancy for the cottager. We see that as setting up a system which works against the normal interests of the industry and think that that deterrent effect should be removed. We feel quite clearly that, unless we do so, there will, in many areas, be dilapidated cottages which will not be improved, and in many other areas where a new cottage is needed it will not be built. It is because we feel so convinced of that that we feel it necessary to make this amendment and put this Bill—and indeed this Clause—on the Statute Book. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will agree to the Clause.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: This Clause not only recognises the evils of the tied cottage system but encourages it and bolsters it up. Because of that, I want to oppose the Clause as hard as I can. It is a matter which vitally affects the interests of the agricultural worker. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) drew from the Minister the admission that he had not, in fact, consulted the representatives of the agricultural workers about this Bill, my right hon. Friend admitted that he was angry—and I must say he looked it. His words came a little more slowly than they normally do, if I may say so, and it was quite clear that he was absolutely sincere. Yet, on the benches opposite, he was greeted with laughter. Why was he greeted with laughter on those benches?

Mr. Baldwin: He was greeted with laughter because those who took part in the debates on the Hill Farming Bill in 1946 realised that the right hon. Gentleman intended putting in the Bill exactly what is proposed today. [Hon. Members: "No, no."] It was only because of pressure from two or three Members of his own party that he did not so.

Mr. Mallalieu: I think that the matter is sufficiently within the knowledge of all of us to know what nonsense the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) is talking.

I can suggest another reason why hon. Members on the other side of the House greeted my right hon. Friend's righteous and entirely sincere indignation with laughter, and that was because of the nakedness with which the cat came out of the bag. It came out of the bag without any of that sleek respectability with which the Conservative cat is so often covered when agricultural matters are discussed. On this occasion it was shown that the Conservative Party had not consulted the representatives of the agricultural workers on a matter which so obviously concerned them intimately.
What has become of the injunctions which we so often have had to sit and listen to from the other side of the Committee—that we should not drag agriculture into the party political arena? We are not supposed to accuse one another of insincerity, but I am going to take the liberty on this occasion, not to accuse hon. Members opposite of insincerity, but to draw their attention to the nausea which we feel when they talk about that sort of thing. It is all right for Conservatives to bring agriculture into the party political arena when they are quietly doing a party act.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. and learned Gentleman is not concerning himself at the moment with this Clause.

Mr. Mallalieu: I must bow to your Ruling, Sir Rhys, and I will not pursue that matter any further except to say that I hope hon. Members opposite will obey that Ruling in the same way as I will myself.
This is a Clause which runs a very grave risk of jeopardising one of the most valuable assets of the 1947 Acts, which is co-operation between the farmer and landowner and the farm worker. Here the Government are acting against the farm worker in a way which is bound to have repercussions on his outlook. I happen to be a humble denizen of a Committee upstairs which at the moment is concerned with another agricultural Bill. When we tried, in that Committee, to bring in a provision to allow a farm worker to be a member the tribunal which will decide—I will only take half a minute over this, Sir Rhys, and I do think at the end of what I have said you will decide that it has been against the


rules of order—whether or not a farmer should be dispossessed on the grounds of alleged inefficiency, we were told that it could not be done because such matters did not affect the farm worker personally.
Can we have a matter which affects him personally more than this question of the tied cottage, and yet we are told that he has not been consulted? Not only has he not been consulted, but he has been ignored. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the Bill was introduced in November and nothing has happened since then by way of protests and representations from agricultural workers. That is no argument to produce, because once a Bill is presented to the House, the Floor of the House is the place where objections are made, and we most certainly make them now.

6.45 p.m.

My right hon. Friend was angry, perhaps, because he was surprised that the agricultural workers were not consulted by a Conservative Government. I can only say that I was not surprised. I have always regarded the party opposite as the party of big business. They will take their orders for agriculture from big business, and they will consult their friends whose interests they represent. They are not concerned with those whom they do not represent. That is why the farm worker is left out of these consultations, and we protest strongly against this new Clause.

Mr. Denys Billiard(Norfolk, South-West): I did not intend to intervene in this debate, for my constituency does not come within the category of hill fanning land; in fact a lot of it is down-hill—at any rate, it drops to sea level. But I have an interest in hill farming irrespective of that aspect of the matter, because I often wonder why people want to live up on the hills and work in the arduous conditions they do. My interest is to provide them with as good conditions as possible.
I have been honoured this evening by having a modest article which I contributed to a farming journal quoted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I therefore claim the right to reply to one or two of the points made. I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and other hon. Members said about this matter and in the controversy

which has arisen over it. They agreed that in the difficult cases that arise we are often dealing with the bad employer and the bad farm worker. We are not dealing in general with all cases.
This Clause requires a certain length of notice to be given, and the reason it is necessary is to afford a degree of protection to the farm worker who is in one of these tied houses. I think there is a case for saying that the restricted tenancy, of the type hitherto allowed under the Hill Farming Act, does not fit in absolutely with agricultural conditions. I should be prepared to argue a case about that at some other time, and I think my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave justification for it in the speech which he has just made.
But I will not develop that argument further because of the important business that is to follow, except to say that there are several reasons why a restricted tenancy does not fit all agricultural circumstances. Therefore, I was very glad when, in the Housing Act of 1952, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) and other hon. Members got inserted in that Bill this provision for four weeks' notice. I should say, of course, that my hon. Friends got the provision inserted with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I have said that at least four weeks' notice should be the minimum period that we should provide for. Most employers do go to the courts, and I said in my article that I thought it would be a good thing if it were made very plain by the statute that they should all go to the courts. I stand by that, and I do not see anything particularly wrong in it. I do not think that in voting for the four weeks' notice I shall have done anything inconsistent with what I wrote in that article. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] The inconsistency is not apparent to me. I think it is a step forward, because it will get more houses improved and, therefore, I support it.
When hon. Members opposite do me the honour of quoting my article, I wish they would also quote what I said by way of criticism of the manner in which they try to raise unnecessary disquiet in the agricultural industry. I have also said that one of the necessary steps to solve


the tied cottage question is that the general housing position should improve. I would only say this, that in the four rural districts in the division which I represent, 50 per cent. more council houses have been built in the two years since the present Government came into power than were built in the two years previously. They have done more to solve this pressing problem than all the Measures put together which the Labour Government passed. I therefore welcome this Bill, which I believe will improve the houses in the hill farming areas, and I hope the Clause will be accepted.

Mr. Mallalieu: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him a question? He was talking about the anxiety which he thinks we on this side of the Committee have caused in farming circles. Will he tell the Committee of the occasion in his own constituency when, after a long speech about British Guiana and a number of other things, he was asked by a farmer at the back, "How am I to sell my barley?"

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. That question has nothing to do with this Clause.

Mr. G. Brown: I am sorry to get up now, Sir Rhys, but I understand that there is an agreement as to the hour at which the next item of business shall begin, and that it is hoped to dispose of this Clause and the next two Amendments on the Order Paper before then. Therefore, I hope I shall be forgiven by hon. Members who have a point of view to put on this Clause if I sum up the debate on this subject for this side of the Committee before we proceed to a Division.
Frankly, I am still staggered by the arguments put up from the opposite side of the Committee. At this late stage it is no use my repeating the point which has been made so often if hon. Gentlemen opposite will not see it. I really do not know how it can be argued that it is a step forward to take away from the occupier of a cottage the protection which everybody alleges he is now generally given, and to replace it by a lesser degree of protection.
If hon. Members will go on arguing and weeping crocodile tears for the

people they are harming, deluding themselves that in some curious way they are doing these people good by harming them, there is little we can do. All we can hope is that their constituents will do something outside this House. As the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) said so modestly, he does not merit the attention he has had, but there is something significant in an hon. Gentleman who can state that there ought to be a minimum protection of four weeks as well as reference to the magistrates' court and then, almost in the same week, is willing to vote for a Clause which refuses the very things he stated ought to be given.

Mr. Bullard: If I may interrupt, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the restricted tenancy arrangement throughout agriculture would be a satisfactory solution of the tied cottage problem? That is a question which is pertinent to the one he has just asked me.

Mr. Brown: I would be willing to go to South-West Norfolk and debate this question with the hon. Gentleman in front of his constituents, but all I am concerned with at the moment is that he has just cast a vote diametrically opposed to what he wrote a week or so ago.

Mr. Baldwin: Not yet.

Mr. Brown: It is no good the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) trying to come to the support of his hon. Friend. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman advocated that there should be a minimum protection and access to a magistrates' court and he has just voted against an Amendment which would have given that access. So he is diametrically opposing what he wrote. The only reason for wasting a little time on this matter is to point out that although hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to say one thing outside the House and do another thing in it, even in the same week, it is straining us a little when they get up here and pretend that the two things are one and the same.

Mr. Bullard: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me a second more, may I say that I wished to develop the restricted tenancy point but I cut my speech short because of the time. So I hope he will not try to get the better of me in argument because he happens to have the last word.

Mr. Brown: I am only dealing with the four lines with which the hon. Gentleman closed his article in the "Farmers' Weekly." On this point he ought to write next week and say, "That is what I thought at the time but, when this came up in the House of Commons, I did exactly the opposite. "If he does that, he will put himself right with his own conscience, if not with the world outside.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said an interesting thing. Earlier when I argued that we ought not to have a Clause with the four weeks in it because the four weeks would then become the general rule, I was immediately hotly attacked by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) on the ground that I was casting aspersions on the farmers by saying that they would make a general rule of what we wrote into the Bill. Yet, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) why the Government did not write something better than the four weeks into the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary said, "I should like to do so. That is what I do. That is what nearly all farmers do. But if we write it into the Bill, it will become the general rule, and we cannot afford to have that. "If it is wrong to write something above, or as good as, the common practice into the Bill for fear of it becoming the general rule, how can it be right to put something less than the common practice into the Bill and argue that it will not become common practice?
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are deluding themselves about this. They want to do the right thing, they want to be human, but they are so muddled about it that they are doing great harm to farm workers all over the country and, at the end, they will do great harm to the farming industry, because they will not get

the wives of farm workers to live in isolated areas and be subject to this kind of treatment.

On the question of consultation, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made the best of a bad job about the unions having made no representations. Yet if my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley had ever made a major alteration in the law which affected the interests of the County Landowners' Association or the National Farmers' Union without having consultations with them in the fullest sense of the word, there would have been a terrible howl from that side of the Committee, and if we had answered that protest by saying that they could have written to us, the howl would have grown louder, not died down.

The position here is that none of the three trade unions was consulted or was even told that the Government were proposing to give way to the representations of the C.L.A. and the N.F.U. That situation was bad enough, but the fact that the subsequent Bill is such a bad one makes it worse. I ask the Committee to divide, not only because the Bill is bad and it will do harm, but to register violent protest at the action of this Tory Government in ignoring the representatives of the farm workers.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, can he tell us what consultation took place between the Labour Government and the N.F.U. at the time when an alteration was made in the Act?

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. That does not arise on this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 250.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[6.57 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Bullard, D. G.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bennett, Or. Reginald (Gosport)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Burden, F. F. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Birch, Nigel
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Bishop, F. P.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Baker, P. A. D.
Black, C. W.
Campbell, Sir David


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Carr, Robert


Baldwin, A. E.
Bowen, E. R.
Cary, Sir Robert


Banks, Col. C.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Channon, H.


Barber, Anthony
Boyle, Sir Edward
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Barlow, Sir John
Brains, B. R.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Baxter, A. B.
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Cole, Norman


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Colegate, W. A.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Brooman-White, R. C.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.




Cooper, Sgn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitman, I. J.


Crouch, R. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jennings, Sir Roland
Powell, J. Enoch


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kaberry, D.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Kerr, H. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Deedes, W. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Redmayne, M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dormer, Sir P. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robertson, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Robson-Brown, W.


Drewe, Sir C.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Roper, Sir Harold


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Russell, R. S.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Longden, Gilbert
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Scott, R. Donald


Fell, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shepherd, William


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCallum, Major D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Snadden, W. McN.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fort, R.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Speir, R. M.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McKibbin, A. J.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stevens, G. P.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Gammans, L. D.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Storey, S.


Glover, D.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Gough, C. F. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Teeling, W.


Gower, H. R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grimond, J.
Maude, Angus
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maudling, R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Turner, H. F. L.


Harden, J. R. E.
Mellor, Sir John
Turton, R. H.


Hare, Hon. J. A.
Molson, A. H. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Vane, W. M. F.


Hay, John
Moore, Sir Thomas
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vosper, D. F.


Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wade, D. W.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Neave, Airey
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholls, Harmar
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Geoffrey (Farnham)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hollis, M. C.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Watkinson, H. A.


Holt, A. F.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hope, Lord John
Oakshott, H. D.
Wellwood, W.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Horobin, I. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wills, G.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
York, C.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Osborne, C.



Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Page, R. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Mr. Studholme and 




Mr. Robert Allan.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bence, C. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Beswick, F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bartley, P.
Bing, G. H. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Blackburn, F.







Blyton, W. R.
Holmes, Horace
Porter, G.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, H. W.
Hoy, J. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowles, F. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H.(Accrington)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Burke, W. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Richards, R.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cattle, Mrs. B. A.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, E. W.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Crosland, C. A. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Daines, P.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lewis, Arthur
Soremen, R. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Steele, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, J. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Delargy, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Donnelly, D. L.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Swingler, S. T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, G. O.


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Messer, Sir F.
Thornton, E.


Fienburgh, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Timmons, J.


Finch, H. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, F.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Monslow, W.
Usborne, H. C.


Follick, M.
Moody, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Foot, M. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Forman, J. C.
Morley, R.
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, Perey (Swansea, W.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Weitzman, D.


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Glanville, James
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Gooch, E. G.
Mulley, F. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Murray, J. D.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Nally, W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Grey, C. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wigg, George


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oliver, G.H.
Willey, F. T.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hamilton, W. W.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hannan, W.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, W. R. (Droylesden)


Hargreaves, A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pannell, Charles
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Parkin, B. T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pearson, A.
Yates, V. F.


Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hobson, C. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie



Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Wallace.

Clause 2.—(REGISTRATION OF CONDITIONS APPLIED TO COTTAGES UNDER S. 10 OF THE HILL FARMING ACT, 1946.)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page, line 1, after "notify," to insert:
he occupier of the cottage and.
Since we are progressing nearer and nearer to the Government majority, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be inclined to look with more favour on this Amendment and also the following Amendment.
This Amendment has a very simple purpose. It applies only to the sitting occupiers of cottages which might be affected by the change when it comes to pass. We are anxious that they, as well as the officers of the council and the landlords, shall know that a change has been made. I cannot think that the Parliamentary Secretary would not want them to know as well, and I believe that this Amendment must commend itself to him.

Mr. Nugent: I am able to look with sympathy on the right hon. Member's contention, but I think that the Amendment which he has moved and the one to which he has referred go beyond that. I am, however, willing to give an undertaking that we will see whether we can give effect to his wish that the sitting occupiers should be informed of their position and of the fact that they have the tenancy despite the alteration which we are proposing. I will see whether we can introduce an Amendment in another place to give effect to the right hon. Member's wish.

Mr. Brown: The suggestion is that we should have the Amendment introduced in another place. Although this is a small matter, we do attach importance to it. I understand that the later stages of this Bill are to be taken shortly in the House of Commons and if the suggested Amendment were taken in the House it would not hold us up for a long time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that he will introduce his Amendment during the next stage of the Bill in this House.

Mr. Nugent: The difficulty is that the Bill is unamended and, therefore, there will be no opportunity.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman could recommit for the purpose, or, alternatively, he could accept our Amendment with the assurance that if his advisers think that it goes too wide we shall be prepared to accept a Government Amendment in different words to put the matter right on the Report stage. I am assured, however, that the Amendment does not go as wide as the hon. Gentleman fears.

Mr. Nugent: I have already consulted my advisers on this and, while I am sympathetic to the right hon. Member's point, we cannot accept the Amendment in its present form. Therefore, the course which I have indicated seems the only way out of the dilemma. But I assure the right hon. Member that we shall stand by our undertaking.

Mr. Brown: I am very reluctant to withdraw the Amendment. We have played very well with the Government side and this is a matter on which we feel very deeply. We should like to have had a chance of looking at this matter again here in case the hon. Gentleman draws the wording too narrowly. We are not asking for very much. If the hon. Gentleman could accept this Amendment and bring the matter forward on Report stage, that would keep it within our influence. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be forthcoming to that extent.

Mr. Nugent: I will see if we can amend the Bill for the Report stage, if that is in order, so as to give effect to the intention of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member. But I am afraid that we cannot accept the words as they are put down in this Amendment. I am advised that if this can be done on Report stage we could so amend the wording.

The Chairman: There will not be a Report stage unless the Bill is amended.

Mr. R. T. Paget: If the hon. Gentleman accepted this Amendment now he would be doing so on the understanding that it would not be this Amendment which would eventually go into the Bill but that he was accepting it so that there should be a Report stage. On that Report stage the hon. Gentleman could produce his Amendment. Surely that is the convenient way of doing what we all desire.

Mr. Brown: May I make another suggestion? If the hon. Gentleman cannot meet us, perhaps I might move to report Progress in order that the Committee stage of this Bill would not be finished tonight. The hon. Gentleman would then have plenty of time to deal with the matter here. That seems a better way of doing it than to leave the Bill in its unfinished form.

Mr. Nugent: Ihave been trying to meet the convenience of hon. Members just as the right hon. Member has been trying. I know that there is an important debate to follow this Committee stage. That is why I have not discussed the content of the Amendment. I would be reluctant to take up time on this narrow Amendment, on which we agree in principle. We are willing to look at it with sympathy to the intention, but my advisers advise me quite definitely that this Amendment goes far beyond what the right hon. Member wants. Therefore, we cannot accept it. I do ask that the right hon. Gentleman should not report Progress, but that he should withdraw his Amendment on the undertaking that we shall put in words for consideration in another place, words which will meet his request.

Mr. Brown: With very great reluctance, and only because another subject is about to come before the House, as a result of an understanding between the usual channels, I will withdraw the Amendment on the understanding given by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am bound to say, however, that, having been as facilitating as we have since the Committee stage began, I am very unhappy that we should be treated in this way now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move,
That this House, while accepting the principle that Colonial Territories should not be forced to buy British goods when it is contrary to their interest, regrets the action of Her Majesty's Government in entering into a trade agreement with the Japanese Government without prior consultation with the industries concerned, and without securing assurances that Japanese exporters will not revert to previous unfair trade practices.
It is inevitable, and natural, that when Anglo-Japanese relations are debated there is a danger that feelings may be roused by thoughts of the behaviour of Japanese nationals, not only before the wax, but during the war. I hope that this evening we shall be able to avoid giving expression to any nationalist or racial feelings at all and that we shall be able to look at this question as a straight question of economic dealing.
Before coming to the details of the Agreement, which, of course, has not been published—we can only rely on what we have read in the Press—I think there are two principles which ought to be stated and on which I am quite sure the whole House will agree. In the first place, I think we would all agree that Colonial Territories should not be made to buy British goods when it is contrary to their economic interests to do so. That thought finds expression in our Motion. It is, I think, against our ideas of trusteeship of the Colonies that we should use the Colonies as a dumping ground or a safe protected market for British manufactures just because they are British manufactures.
As far as the textile industries are concerned, I am sure we all agree that Lancashire's only protection, in the long run, against competition from other countries, whether wage competition or not, lies in the efforts she makes to reach the highest possible level of efficiency, not only in production but also in marketing. That, of course, was the subject to which the late Sir Stafford Cripps and I, in later years, devoted so much time during the period in which the Labour Government were in office.
The tragedy of the Agreement which we are debating tonight is that just as


Lancashire—I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) that when I use the word "Lancashire" I mean Lancashire and Cheshire—was beginning to undertake the changes that were necessary we were met with these abrupt reversals of Government policy, creating new uncertainty and new unsettlement in the industry. I shall return to that matter later.
Secondly, I think the House will accept that Japanese payments are in a mess. Certainly none of us, on either side, wants to balance world trade, or any part of world trade, on the basis of the lowest common denominator of restricted imports and restricted exports. As far as general principles are concerned, we give those to the Government. Now to come to the case against the Government.
The first point dealt with in the Motion relates to consultations and the first indictment is that the Government are guilty, to use the words that were quoted in the "Manchester Guardian"—which, itself, was originally a supporter of this Agreement—
of tearing up 20 years of British fiscal policy without consulting anyone outside the narrow ring of Treasury officials.
The whole House knows that this Agreement has given rise to violent criticism in Lancashire. I do not need to list all the organisations which have been clamouring at the door of the President of the Board of Trade—the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners, the Overseas Trade Committee of the Cotton Board, the Legislative Council of the United Textile Factory Workers' Association and the rest. One of the reasons for their strong feelings is that there was no prior consultation before this major reversal of policy took place.
Even after the Agreement has been signed Lancashire does not know what it is all about. That was the burden of the decision of the Cotton Board conference last Friday, when they decided to press for details of what is happening. I quote the "Manchester Guardian" again, a paper, I repeat, friendly to the Agreement, or which had begun by being friendly, until we began to drag more out of the Government, when even the "Manchester Guardian "was able to see what a bad Agreement it was. It stated:

Here is an agreement negotiated in secret, vitally affecting British industries, that is put through without consultation with them. Even now we do not know its implications fully. The cotton trade organisations yesterday—a week after the signature of the agreement—have to ask for details of how the £200 million worth of Japanese export trade is to be divided market by market. There has been hole-and-corner work in Whitehall.
Yesterday, when the President of the Board of Trade finally had to receive a deputation from Lancashire—he will find now that he will spend a lot more time receiving deputations than if he had consulted the industry before the Agreement was made—the manufacturers went away disappointed, I understand, with their interview. They could get no answer to their representations from the President because he was apparently reserving himself for a major speech here tonight.
It is right to refer to one point made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury when he answered a Private Notice Question on this matter last week. His attempt to plead in aid the fact that Sir Raymond Streat had been privately told in confidence was, I thought, an unworthy attempt to plead in aid the Chairman of the Cotton Board. I apologise for again quoting "Manchester Guardian." It stated:
Even a Minister as junior as Mr. Maudling should know that this is the oldest and stalest of political tricks. You tell a man something 'confidentially' and you shut his mouth. It is a trick used from the beginning of time to keep newspapers quiet.
In fact, Sir Raymond Streat was not permitted, so far as I understand, to tell the Cotton Board.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): He was specifically told that he could inform his colleagues on the Cotton Board.

Mr. Wilson: Then it seems strange that they should issue a statement to say that they have not been told. Perhaps the President will sort that out with them.
The plain fact is that this Government do not believe in consultation with industries. We know that where certain vested interests are concerned they consult them very favourably; they dance to every tune they play. But among that list of interests which they consult we do not find Lancashire or the Potteries. We ask, "Why not? "Did they not contribute enough to Tory Party funds at the last Election? We have seen in debate


after debate that the cotton industry is the Cinderella of this Government's economic policy. The trouble is—I am sorry to say—that the Government think they know it all as regards the cotton industry. We have to tell them that they do not.
The President himself scarcely ever visits the great industrial centres. I should think that few, if any, Presidents of the Board of Trade have spent so little time in Lancashire as the right hon. Gentleman has done since his appointment. His hon. and learned Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, usually does not come to our cotton debates, and although he no doubt has great qualities he is utterly useless in an industrial Department. We welcomed the appointment of the Minister of State, Board of Trade, and we welcomed his visit to South America until he interrupted it to come back and cause disruption on the further proceedings of the Cotton Bill.
The President has more than, once shown his contempt for consultations with the cotton industry. I cannot quote the proceedings of the Standing Committee on the Cotton Bill as that Committee has not reported to the House, but we know from an answer which he has given to the House that there was no Ministerial consultation with the industry about the Cotton Bill. We know that he is unwilling to consult the industry about future events in connection with raw cotton. It is fair to say—if the President disagrees he willno doubt say so—that no Government have had less Ministerial consultation with these industries than this one has had.
I have no doubt that as we have raised the question of consultations there will have been intensive Government researches going on into the record of the Labour Government and my own record in particular because whenever the Government get into a mess or do anything they should not do their only reply, apparently, is to do a lot of intensive research into telegrams and cock a Parliamentary snook across the Table and say "You're another. "I should not be surprised to find that there has been more Board of Trade time spent in the last week trying to find evidence of my failure to consult industries than Board of Trade Ministers have spent in consultation with those industries in the whole of last year.

I shall not be at all surprised if the President gets up and tells us that on the occasion of the Anglo-Ruritanian Agreement of 1948 we failed to consult the humbug manufacturers. Obviously, there will be such cases; I do not for a moment deny them. What I do say is that where major industries were prejudiced by Governmental action, particularly by bilateral trade agreements, where there was any question of a major reversal of trading policies there was consultation with those industries. In some cases markets had been closed by foreign Governments and we tried time and time again to get them reopened.
I would not say that in every such case we had consultations but where there was to be a new decision involving a major change I think we can claim that there were consultations, with the exception, fairly mentioned by the hon. Gentleman a week ago, about the liberalisation of trade in Western Europe. When going into a major policy of liberalisation affecting literally thousands of industries and products it would have been physically impossible to consult them all. What we did do was to say that if any industries were prejudiced they could make their case to the Government for an increase in tariffs. That was the main point involved in the case of horticulture. We started the machinery that made that possible, machinery which the President has continued to use during the past few weeks.
I know that the Government spokesman will throw up the question of the so-called "Black Pact" with Cuba, about which the "Daily Express" got into a state of apoplexy again last week. The trouble about the "Daily Express, "when commenting on the Cotton Agreement is that it supports Commonwealth trade but combines that with an entirely incompatible support for the Conservative Party and opposition to long-term contracts. I wish to save the time of the House, but I know this will be thrown up if I do not deal with it. The "Daily Express" went so far as to say that we did not consult the sugar growers. But they were not prejudiced; sugar imports have continued to increase since then, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) flew 8,000 miles to consult the sugar growers of Cuba before a decision was taken.


The Board of Trade Ministers cannot even board a train to go to Manchester to see the cotton industry, a train which, if they chose the right one, stops at Stoke-on-Trent. Where there was any major change in policy it was our policy to consult, especially where Japan was concerned. We were under frequent pressure from a number of countries to give most-favoured-nation treatment to Japan. We were in constant consultation with the industries, and, I say this in fairness, like the President and the present Government we refused to give that most-favoured-nation treatment.
We had constant consultation with Lancashire whenever the problem of Japan came up—[An Hon. Member: "What about the Peace Treaty?"] There was consultation on the Peace Treaty. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that certain guarantees were written into the Peace Treaty. Our problem tonight is to try to find out how far they have been honoured. We realised that memories of Japanese competition and its effects have burned deep into the hearts of every Lancashire worker. The same is true of the workers in the Potteries.
The second point in our Motion refers to unfair practices. We say that this Agreement should not have been concluded until there were effective guarantees against the revival by Japanese exporters of unfair practices. I do not wish to wory the House with details of the kind of practices in which Japan used to indulge before the war, but it is important that the House should realise that these practices have not stopped at the end of the war but have been revived again. I would refer hon. Members to the Overseas Economic Survey, published by the Board of Trade,—the report by the Commercial Minister in Tokyo—in which he says:
a number of cases of imitations of United Kingdom textile and pottery designs by Japanese manufacturers have been reported in the post-war period.
He went on to say:
There will, no doubt, continue to be many cases of infringement of foreign industrial designs in the textile and pottery fields. Much of the industry is in the hands of small 'family' units who are not members of the relevant trade associations and as often as not transgress through ignorance rather than from intent.

We can produce a great deal of evidence to show that particularly in the last few months the pirating of industrial designs has increased to an alarming degree. For instance, I can quote from a letter sent to an hon. Member of this House by one of the leading figures in Lancashire dealing with overseas trade. He states:
I must tell you that we are far from satisfied with the position about design infringements by Japan. In some markets it has become as bad as pre-war, and unless we can get their Government to force their calico printers into a gentleman's agreement to refrain from deliberate copying, we shall, for technical reasons, never stop it by mere design registration, as the Board of Trade suggest. This seemingly minor matter can affect us enormously; our best designs and fastest colours on good quality cloths are killed by the entry a couple of months later from Japan of the identical designs but printed in loose fugitive colours on low filled finish cloths selling at half the price. The dealers who import our British fibres even suffer by losses in 'selling off,' and thus is created the loss of confidence which cuts out our trade so much.
That is from one of the leading figures in the Lancashire textile industry.
What protection has there been? I gather that there was a proposal some time ago, following the President's reference to registration of designs, for a conference with the Japanese and a conference was held in Manchester. The Japanese proposed to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce that the way to deal with it would be for every new design registered in Lancashire to be made known to the Japanese who would then take 300 copies of these designs and send them to their manufacturers and ask them not to copy them. What the Japanese did not realise was that they were dealing with hard-bitten Manchester merchants—they must have thought they were dealing with the Economic Secretary—and, of course, the proposal was turned down.
We have not, so far as this market is concerned, even the protection of the utility standards which we had two years ago. Where are those quality standards which the President told us were to be worked out? He told us that two years ago. He said they would be worked out within a few weeks. For the greater part they have just not been worked out, but they would have provided some protection against poor quality imports. I do not wish to develop the question of Purchase Tax tonight because that has already been debated this week, but I


wish to point out that the cheaper Japanese production coming in escapes the D level and gets a double advantage compared with the British home-produced material.
I wish to say a word about unfair practices more generally. We admit, and I have said, that Lancashire must face fair natural trade in the Colonies. I do not intend to say anything tonight about low wage standards in Japan, because we know there has been some improvement in trade union organisation there since the war. But only yesterday the "Manchester Guardian" had a headline—"Japanese Government hits at trade union." The paper went on to say:
The Japanese Government has struck another blow at trade union freedom which the legislation of American occupation has tried to ensure.
It would be unkind to remind the Government of the leading article in tonight's "Evening Standard. "I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen opposite have not seen it—about wage standards in Japan in relation to this very Agreement. I wish to ask the House, having said that Lancashire must be prepared to face fair and natural trade, whether the trade we are likely to get in the Colonies will be either fair or natural.
I do not need to make much of the point that Japanese exports to the Colonies will be abnormally and unnaturally virulent in this period because they are being denied access to their normal market in China. We know that the United States have always put a lot of pressure on other Governments to accord favourable treatment to Japanese imports, but will hardly allow any Japanese goods into the American market ac all.
The result of the closed markets in other areas will be that competition will be more violent in the colonial markets. It will not only be abnormally strong. When water is dammed up in one area it will rush with all the more force through any narrow channel into which it has been forced, and similarly this, competition will not only be stronger but will be actively unfair, in that the Japanese exporters are at present dumping their products in other markets, including the Colonies, and, as was said in the "Economist," masked by a dual price system. They have a separate exchange rate for exports from their normal official

exchange rate. I do not know whether this surprises the President, but those are the facts.
I do not know what guarantees the Government have against this sort of dumping, because at the present time, for reasons I will give in a moment, the costs between the two countries are not all that out of line. On the official exchange rates Japanese costs are not all that below Lancashire costs. Some people say they are actually higher. But so long as they can use special exchange rates they can always get under the Lancashire price with export subsidies and we must expect them to do so ruthlessly. We know how close is the tie-up between the Japanese manufacturing and export interests on the one hand and the Japanese Government on the other.
One has to deal with the motive of the Government in entering into this Agreement. We have had the statement of the Economic Secretary, and last week-end, when he was opening the North-Western Conservative Party area headquarters, in Manchester, Lord Woolton had something to say about this Agreement. One result of the Agreement is that the headquarters will not find any customers. But his statement, and that of the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who also spoke about the Japanese Agreement when in the Midlands, were described in the "Manchester Guardian" as "soothing syrup." That paper said:
The trouble is that both of them made the dose too strong. Indeed, it tasted suspiciously like whitewash.
It went on:
Listening to Lord Woolton one might suppose this Agreement to be a wonderful thing, hardly less important in history than the Ottawa Agreement of blessed memory.
In that connection, we notice that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) has actually signed the wishy-washy Amendment which has been put down by Conservative Members representing Lancashire constituencies.
So far, we will agree that the motive is to maintain Japanese purchasing power for sterling area commodities. But what is the reason for the deficit? The first reason is the monstrous inflation in the Japanese economy resulting from, to some extent at any rate, American


military expenditure in Japan to the tune of 500 million dollars in the last three years. This inflation has allowed a spending spree on consumer goods. The "Economist" noted that
this emergency sustenance has enabled and encouraged the Japanese, in 1953, to import luxury goods
and now Lancashire is in a mess as a result.
Then, again, there has been the relations between Japan and Australia. We all know that the present Australian Government removed controls and that imports from Japan have risen several times above the previous level. Then Australia faced a balance-of-payments crisis and cut down her imports from Japan. One result was that Japan ran into a serious deficit with Australia. I believe that in the first nine months Australia sold £52 million worth of imports to Japan and Japan sold only £2 million worth to Australia.
There have been very large wool purchases by Japan. I do not know whether the Government have satisfied themselves about those purchases, which, in pounds weight, were 76·6 million in 1951, rising to 91· 9 million in 1951–52 and to 154·3 million in 1952–53. I think that those figures were actually published earlier this week in a rather dull Sunday newspaper which is sometimes enlivened by contributions from the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby). We cannot understand why these large wool purchases are continuing. Are they speculative? Is it true, as some people say, that what Lancashire cotton is facing today Yorkshire will be facing tomorrow, in virulent Japanese competition in wool?
One of the serious things about this matter is that the Economic Secretary, finding this deficit, sets out to conclude a sterling area payments agreement, but not a sterling area trading agreement, as has been done by Australia, South Africa, India, Pakistan and other self-governing territories. One of the serious aspects of this, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), is that the Sydney Conference seems to have made no real attempt to get a Commonwealth trading policy which would have been capable of looking after this problem, and because

of its inability to plan a trading policy the whole brunt of this deficit falls on Lancashire and the Colonies. We must make certain assumptions in regard to Dominion trading. Obviously, we cannot control the acts of Dominion Governments or importers. Those are pious aspirations. Control, in the Colonies, of their trade is exact and can be very harsh, It is fixed and done by licensing.
What, in fact, are the Government doing, with this Agreement? The Economic Secretary has tried to solve the problem, with which we agree he is faced, by creating or reviving an artificial system of Free Trade in an un free world, in which a large part of the trade is held up either by strategic restrictions on the Chinese market, by American Protection or by the unpredictable acts of the self-governing territories in the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, he still tries to inject a self-balancing Free Trade system within this very narrow area of trade between Japan and the sterling area, and so we get his new Conservative Party doctrine of Free Trade, Manchester school and all the rest of it, along with trade based on export subsidies and dumping, which is not assumed to be part of the classical Manchester Free Trade tradition.
The Japanese put this plan up to the Economic Secretary, and he fell for these proposals. If George Tomlinson had been with us tonight he would have said, "They saw him coming." Certainly, the Japanese have been overjoyed by this Agreement. They have been surprised by it, because it is a far more generous Agreement than they expected. The "Manchester Guardian "has made that clear. Let me give one more illustration about our trade in raw cotton.
During the war, and for some years after the war, this country bought practically the whole of the Uganda cotton crop on a bulk-buying arrangement. Japan got very little of it. In 1951, for instance, we bought nearly £10 million in the sterling area and Japan bought £360,000 In 1952, when the President of the Board of Trade started his policy of private buying, we got £8 million worth and the Japanese got £3 million worth of Uganda cotton. This year, of course, with the situation thrown wide open by private buying, we shall probably buy very little cotton from Uganda in this country.


Uganda is having to look to Japan to sell her raw cotton, so we get his fantastic situation: Japanese textiles, under this Agreement, are being imported into Lancashire so that the Japanese should have the money to buy Uganda raw cotton which is no longer coming to this country because the Government have wound up the Raw Cotton Commission.
That is the situation which will go on and will save Japan dollars, of which Japan had an abundance, while we are spending more dollars on American cotton instead of getting our cotton from Uganda. That is the kind of mess that Government policy has got into. Trade within the Commonwealth is being reduced to bear the brunt of this Agreement. There is talk about increased shipments to Japan, and oil has been mentioned. How far, we would like to know, is this Agreement a sell-out to world oil interests at the expense of Lancashire, the Potteries and the rest?
The "Manchester Guardian" said the other day:
The main criticism against the Government is not that they are trying to keep up the level of trade between Japan and the sterling area but that the Government have displayed an astonishing ineptitude in making the Agreement.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would disagree with that for a moment.
Let me give him another illustration. Japan is freely supplied with dollars. Before the Japanese Peace Treaty and before the Payments Agreement of August, 1951, balances were settled in dollars. Surely what ought to be happening now is that the hon. Gentleman ought to have asked the Japanese to give up some of their dollars to pay for the deficit. The Payments Agreement of 1951, about which I know the hon. Gentleman is to make a long speech, never envisaged vast deficits like £110 million to be supplied by the kind of method that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. As the "Economist" said:
It is high time that they (Japan) called in the currency of the New World to restore their deficit with the Old.
Trade will depend on an exact balance of accounts between Japan and the sterling area. I made a reference to the Manchester school a few minutes ago, but I hope that the Liberals here tonight—and I see the right hon. and learned

Gentleman, who was very pleased with the Government and their policies—

Mr. Ellis Smith: And with the "Economist"—

Mr. Wilson: —and the rest of the Liberal Party will not think that this Agreement is Free Trade. It is not. It is bilateralism run mad. It is a bilateral Agreement.
The Government insist upon balancing financially within this bilateral agreement. Everything is, in fact, falling on the trade in the Colonies. The idea is that it is supposed to maintain colonial supplies. I have seen figures produced by the Japanese Government suggesting that finance between the Colonies and Japan just about balanced, and that what is happening under the Agreement is that the Colonies are to bear the brunt of it. The Colonies and the cotton industry are to pay for Japan's excessive imports of Australian wool. Lancashire cotton is paying for Japan's imports of Australian wool.
I have referred to the fact that the "Manchester Guardian" has expressed the view that the Government have been more zealous to get the Colonies to take Japanese goods and increase their quotas even than the Colonies themselves. The "Manchester Guardian "says that the spokesman of the Japanese cotton industry has said as much. What happened last year was that most of the colonial markets were closed. This year, they are wide open. How can anyone plan production or marketing with these violent reversals in Government policy? Already, within the last 10 days, orders for Lancashire goods from East Africa have come to a full stop. The Lancashire cotton industry is already facing enough disturbance and upset because of the Government's raw cotton policy. Now they are in great doubt about their overseas market. How can they plan their raw cotton buying policy when they cannot have the faintest idea how much they are going to be able to sell to the Colonies?
The Government might ask what we would have done. I have mentioned the two principles. We do not believe, as a long-term policy, in using the Colonies as a protective market. Japan, I agree, has also to be helped to pay her way.


Instead of flinging the doors wide open, we would have arranged a planned Increase in quotas, so much this year, so much next year, and so on, and then Lancashire would know what she has to meet.
As the right hon. Gentleman told the House last July, Lancashire has been making great efforts to meet the requirements of the colonial market. We had the mission led by Sir Frank Platt, which inquired into the question of the standardisation of production and of collective marketing. I say that not a single member of that mission would have gone to West Africa had he known that the Government intended to introduce this policy at this particular time. All the good work done by that mission has been undone.
The Government will tell us that we must do something to enable Japan to raise colonial standards of living. If the Government want a proposal for enabling Japan to play her part in Commonwealth development, then the proposal I would make is that she should have been invited to co-operate in the Colombo Plan, and that we should have asked Japan to contribute capital equipment for the use of Asian countries under that Plan.
What the Government are doing is certainly not planning, and is not in any way helping Lancashire to improve the efficiency of her industry. I say that hon. Gentlemen opposite are betraying the trust which they hold to those who elected them. Not one of them would be here tonight if he had told his constituents at the last Election that he would support an Agreement of this kind. Indeed, many of them, at the last Election, were using unscrupulous stories about the import of Hong Kong shirts. I suggest that some of them should face their constituents on this matter.
Finally, I say to the President of the Board of Trade that he may have been soothed by the noble Lord's syrup into believing that this Agreement could be made acceptable to Lancashire. It cannot. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to come to Manchester and to debate this Agreement with me in the Free Trade Hall there. The charge for admission and all the profits made can go to Lancashire

charities, including unemployment relief. If the right hon. Gentleman feels thatI have chosen a ground which might, perhaps, be favourable to our point of view, I will go wherever he likes, to Birmingham or to any other area where he thinks he will get a more favourable hearing. If he comes to Manchester he will hear a lot about the effects of the Government's policy of subordinating trade to the interests of finance at this time.
The right hon. Gentleman has broken faith with the Lancashire cotton industry. I do not believe that he wanted to do that, but that he was bulldozed into this by the Treasury, the Foreign Office and the Minister of Materials. This Agreement has been negotiated by a crowd of amateurs, and I suggest that they should now get out and let the Government of the country be taken over by those who take a real interest in Britain's trade, those under whom Commonwealth trade was a great deal higher than it is now and under whom the nation's export trade was much higher, and, moreover, those who do not regard trade as a plaything for doctrinaire party politics.

7.54 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): This debate is taking place upon an Opposition Motion, the terms of which appeared on the Order Paper only this morning, for reasons which we can all understand. But the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) dealt, quite rightly, with the Agreement, and I also would like to deal with the merits of the Agreement before coming to the specific criticisms he made.
It is, of course, an extremely important Agreement both by reason of the volume of trade involved for this country and the sterling area, and also important by reason of our memories of Japan, to which the right hon. Gentleman very properly referred. I shall endeavour to show that the Agreement as a whole is in the general interest of this country and of the sterling area, a fact which I have not yet seen seriously disputed in any quarter, and which is certainly not disputed in the Motion. I will also endeavour to show that the damage which some people fear may happen to industry in this country will, in fact, not happen.
There is, of course, as a general background to sterling area trading, the position


of Japan in the non-Communist world, to which the right hon. Gentleman made a passing reference. There is the general question of trading policy, of how, if we are asking dollar countries to pursue good creditor policies, we can fail to do so ourselves. I want to rely merely on the economic argument that the continuance of the Sterling Payments Agreement is a good thing for the United Kingdom and for the sterling area.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Others are involved.

Mr. Maudling: They are, indeed, and it would add great strength to my argument if I had time tonight to discuss that point.
The Sterling Payments Agreement, which has just been renewed, was signed originally by the Labour Government. I think it was a very good and sensible Agreement on which to base our long-term trading with Japan. The principle of it was that trade between the sterling area and Japan should be conducted in sterling. There were four good reasons for that.
The first was that the more sterling is used in the world, the stronger the currency it becomes. Secondly, the alternative to trading in sterling would be to offer credit to Japan or to have a settlement in dollars, neither of which would be an attractive proposition for this country. The third reason was that in the long term there will obviously be a strong demand for Japanese goods in the sterling area, and it will be most important, if the sterling area is to buyfrom Japan, that Japan also should pay in sterling, as otherwise we should have a long-term deficit with the Japanese. Fourthly, if we do not have this sort of sterling payment, the Japanese would probably conclude separate bilateral agreements with a number of the Dominions. In the case of some of the Dominions which are selling a large part of their raw materials to Japan, if there were separate bilateral agreements with Japan, that country would in all probability be able to force upon these markets larger quantities of Japanese goods than they can at the moment.
They are four substantial reasons for the Agreement which was signed by the Labour Government and which we have continued. There is no change in the

principles underlying our trade and payments with Japan. It is the Agreement which the Labour Government signed. The important bearing of the Payments Agreement on trade arises from the exchange of notes which is incorporated in the 1951 Agreement. This read as follows:
To ensure the smooth working of the Agreement, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Japan mutually recognise the desirability of keeping Japan's sterling balances within reasonable-limits in order that at all times Japan may hold sufficient sterling to meet her requirements without, however, accumulating an excessive amount. Having regard to all the circumstances, both parties will take all reasonable measures to prevent, or to correct should it occur, any chronic imbalance of payments in either direction.
It amounts to this. If the other chap does trade with one in sterling, then he must have sterling with which to do it. What happens as a result of this Agreement? After the signature of the Agreement in 1951, there was a substantial development of trade between Japan and the sterling area. That was part of the agreement—a substantial increase of trade, including a substantial increase in imports of Japanese goods to the Colonial Territories.
It is an interesting fact—I have looked up the figures—that the figure agreed for colonial purchases at that time was £91 million, precisely the same figure as in the existing Agreement. The Colonies purchased goods at a much heavier rate than this. In the earlier part of 1952 they were purchasing from Japan at the rate of no less than £105 million per annum. That was the immediate outcome of the 1951 agreement. At that time it was not a question of Japan being in deficit. While these purchases were taking place, we were accumulating a very heavy deficit ourselves, and action had to be taken. The Japanese began to accumulate very large quantities of sterling—up to £130 million at one time. They could not ask for dollars because, under the Agreement, they had to hold sterling. They did not press for dollars. They increased their purchases from the sterling area while, at the same time, we imposed very severe restrictions on colonial purchases.
It is those restrictions which were imposed in 1952, because of the balance of payments difficulties, that have now been


eliminated. As a result of these restrictions, the balance swung completely the other way, and in 1953 Japan had a deficit of over £100 million. At the end of the year they had run completely out of sterling, although they had to purchase £44 million in sterling from the International Monetary Fund which, in effect, improved our dollar position. The more sterling required from the Fund by other countries the better became our position with the Fund.
That was the position when these last negotiations for the renewal of the contract were taking place. Japan had run out of sterling. If they were not to be forced drastically to cut imports from the sterling area, they had to be allowed to earn more in the sterling area. The right hon. Member for Huyton seemed to imply that the right thing to have done would have been to forbid the Australians to sell wool when the Japanese asked for it. That is a fine Imperial policy. The Australians want to sell wool and the Japanese want to buy wool. The Japanese had a deficit of £100 million a year and their sterling balances were completely exhausted. We had to choose between a higher level of trade on both sides or a lower level of trade on both sides, and Her Majesty's Government considered that the right choice was for a higher level of trade.

Mr. J. T. Price: The Economic Secretary is now telling the House what he told us a week last Monday, when he made his important declaration to the House. Shorn of all the technicalities which he is now trying to explain to the House, he is reiterating his statement that, because this country had reached a creditor position vis-à-vis Japan—and we have always been told that the object of British policy is to get out of the red and into credit—we must give away some of our bastions of trade to allow the other fellow to trade. Why is not the same thing done for us, with our shortage of dollars?

Mr. Maudling: If people have no sterling, they cannot buy sterling goods. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to provide aid to Japan in the same way as the dollar area provides aid to this country. He asked why we did not demand dollars from the Japanese. Our

dollar position was improved by their purchasing from the Fund, and, under the terms of the Agreement which the Labour Government signed, just as the Japanese could not demand dollars from us when things ran against us, so we had no right to demand dollars from them when they were in difficulties.
If we take away their dollars, what is likely to happen to them in the near future? Their dollar position is not as strong as some people imagine. In any case, it is impossible to say to Japan, or to anyone, "We expect you to maintain your purchases from us while we continue to restrict our purchases from you, in order to keep you in a state of chronic deficit and deliberately earn dolars out of you." I have never heard that put forward as a negotiable proposition.

Mr. H. Wilson: The particularAgreement to which the hon. Member refers was concluded in August, 1951, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross). Surely it provided that if there was a very serious deficit in trade there should be consultation, after which new proposals could be put forward?

Mr. Maudling: Consultation of the type which has taken place when the tendency has been for one side to put on restrictions and the other side to increase purchases. There was no provision to upset the whole Agreement once it became inconvenient to either side. Both the Japanese and we have carried out our part in what has proved to be a sensible agreement.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Now the Government have made a new one.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member does not even yet understand that we are prolonging the Agreement which was made by the Socialist Government.
Now I come to the practical effects of the trade discussions and the talks that went on while the Agreement was being negotiated. The Japanese undertook to maintain their 1953 level of imports from the United Kingdom and the Colonies. That is very important. I would ask the House not to underestimate the fact that there are important and growing markets in the Far East for manufactures of machinery, motor cycles, and woollen and


textile goods which would not be available to us had the Agreement not been concluded in that way. Those markets would have been cut off, because the Japanese could not have afforded to buy United Kingdom goods. They had already been forced to cut down purchases.
Let us take the case of wool textiles. The quota for these goods in Japan next year will be £2 million. Taking wool and all textiles, the United Kingdom will sell more textiles in Japan than the Japanese will sell for consumption in this country, which is an extraordinary thing. Then there is the position with regard to oil. There is a provision that the Japanese are not to discriminate against sterling area oil in favour of oil from other sources. They must give us a fair crack of the whip. Precisely the same thing applies to shipping. They have been discriminating against our shipping and they have undertaken not to do that. These are important gains to British trade. As a result of the arrangements envisaged, we shall have, as between the United Kingdom and Japan, not only a surplus over-all but a surplus on visible trade alone, which is, again, quite extraordinary.
Now I turn to our undertakings. We undertake to permit certain small quotas of Japanese goods for consumption in this country—apparel and pottery, and so on. The amount of pottery concerned represents one three-hundredth part of the consumption of this country, and in regard to apparel the proportion is one-fifteenth of 1 per cent. The amounts involved in these quotas are very small. I would ask hon. Members representing constituencies which are concerned to pay close attention to the actual quotas and to bear in mind that these are for one year and no more.
The United Kingdom will also import £3 million worth of grey cloth for processing (here and for re-export. That is less than half the annual rate of import in 1951, and, indeed, in 1952, when the textile industry was having great: difficulties. I am quite confident that the finishing end of the trade can make good use of this Japanese grey cloth to expand its export sales.
Turning to the Colonies, from the remarks of the right hon. Member for Huyton there appears to be no great difference between us on the principle

which is involved with regard to the Colonies. I hope that that can be generally understood.

Mr. Ellis Smith: There is a difference.

Mr. Maudling: Perhaps the hon. Member will be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so that he can explain what he meant, because his right hon. Friend did not. Whilst there are no balance of payment difficulties, we have in many cases no power, and we have in no case the right, to say to the colonial people, "You must not spend your own money on Japanese goods which you would prefer. You must spend it on Lancashire goods instead. "I do not think that anybody in Lancashire or elsewhere would suggest that we could say that. Nothing could be worse for our relations with the Commonwealth and Colonies than that attitude. Some of the newspapers which attach such importance to questions of Commonwealth and colonial relations should ponder on the question how they can contribute towards those good relations by forcing the Colonies and Commonwealth to buy with their own money goods which they do not want.
These are the undertakings. They are the Japanese undertakings to maintain their level of purchases from the United Kingdom and the Colonies. These are the concessions on our side—the small imports into this country and the recognition that in present circumstances, without any balance of payments difficulties, it is right for the Colonies to import up to their estimated requirements, which is what they were doing at the end of 1951.
I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's criticism. This is a very limited Motion. I see that the "Manchester Guardian, "which has been performing rather peculiar gyrations recently, says that this Motion is strongly critical of the Agreement. I see nothing in the Motion which criticises the Agreement at all. What the Motion criticises is the absence of prior consultation and the absence of assurances on unfair trading practices. I see nothing about the substance of the Agreement, and from that I take it, and the House will take it, that the party opposite do not oppose this Agreement as an Agreement.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Then why are we dividing?

Mr. Maudling: That is exactly what I want to find out.

Mr. S. Silverman: If the hon. Gentleman looks more carefully at the Motion, he will find in the third line the words,
regrets the action of Her Majesty's Government in entering into a trade agreement.…
It goes on to say why.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect to catch me in that way: he is far too amateurish. The Motion reads,
regrets the action of Her Majesty's Government in entering into a trade agreement with the Japanese Government without prior consultation with the industries concerned, and without securing assurances that Japanese exporters will not revert to previous unfair trade practices.

Mr. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Maudling: I cannot give way again. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to advance his own argument. I have my argument to make.

Mr. Silverman: I need only one second to make the point.

Mr. Maudling: I am sorry, but I am already taking too long. This is a short debate.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is taking too long to say nothing whatever.

Mr. Maudling: I think I am saying a good deal more than the hon. Gentleman will say.
Next, I turn to consultation. What I said about consultation, when the right hon. Gentleman asked his Private Notice Question the other day, was that it had never been the practice of any Government to consult whole industries before relaxing quotas imposed for balance of payments purposes. I am quite certain that that is accurate. It is true that before the 1951 Agreement was signed the Government invited comments from the Cotton Board, and rightly, because that Agreement made a complete change in our relations with Japan. It changed the dollar basis to a sterling basis. At the moment we are merely renewing the Agreement, as we have already twice renewed it since 1951.
What the people in Manchester are particularly concerned about is the quotas for the Colonies, and on the colonial quotas the Labour Government did not

consult the textile industry in 1951—and quite rightly, of course. Surely it is wrong for any Government of this country to accept the obligation to consult the home trade before permitting the Colonies to buy goods from the competitors of the home trade. That would be quite wrong, and I do not think we can be blamed for not consulting them in circumstances in which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself would not consult them.
The question of unfair competition has been raised, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be able to deal with that much more thoroughly than I can. I want to point out once again that when the 1951 Agreement was signed there were no assurances against unfair competition. We had not even signed the Japanese Treaty by then. I agree that the Agreement came into force with the Treaty, but there had been no experience of the Treaty, and there were no assurances then.
This is an important point, and we know that there are strong feelings on this matter in Lancashire and in the Potteries. My right hon. Friend says that as examples of unfair trading practices are brought to our notice we will take action upon them. These quotas are for one year only, and if there were a great recrudescence of unfair trading practices, that is a matter which we should have to take very much into account in renewing the agreement for next year.

Mr. H. Wilson: Including dumping?

Mr. Maudling: Yes. That is a question of unfair competition.
I return now to the effect on the textile industry and the Colonies. It has been suggested that Lancashire is having to bear an unfair part of the burden because many additional Japanese sales will be of cotton textiles. To a large extent that is true, but it is textiles, and particularly cotton textiles, that the Colonies want to buy. Inevitably, because they want to. buy them, the main competition will arise in that range.
I want to give the actual figures in order to get this matter into scale. The main increases in the colonial licences will be in the entrepôt Colonies which buy Japanese goods for resale elsewhere as Japanese goods. Other Colonies, however, buy Japanese goods largely for consumption, and these are the goods about


which the textile industry is concerned. In those Colonies the increase in the licensed imports of Japanese goods, compared with last year's limit, will be from £17,500,000 to £25 million. That is the increase in the amount which will be licensed.The actual amount which will be sold depends on the total sales of textiles in those Colonies, the degree to which Lancashire is competitive and also the degree to which Japanese imports displace not Lancashire goods but goods from other countries, including European countries.
That £25 million is, therefore, the absolute maximum. Even if the Japanese should sell in those Colonies goods to the full amount of £25 million, that will be substantially less than the rate at which those Colonies were buying immediately after the conclusion of the 1951 Agreement. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about an abrupt reversal of policy, he is, if I may say so with deep respect, talking nonsense. In the first half of 1952 those Colonies bought from Japan at an annual rate of £28·4 million. Then the restrictions were imposed heavily, and these figures fell. When the restrictions are lifted again and the new arrangements made, the maximum figure will be only £25 million, which will be less than the rate of purchases in the first half of 1952.
When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should do this slowly and with a gradual relaxation, I must tell him that that is precisely what we have done. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not notice it. When we first made the relaxation in 1953 he did not ask any Parliamentary Questions about it. This process of relaxation was started in April, 1953, and was continued in August, 1953. There were no Parliamentary Questions, there was no complaint, there was no excitement. We were relaxing progressively, and now we have reached a situation in which, as we are agreed, there are no longer balance of payments reasons for limiting imports into the Colonies of the goods from Japan which they need.
I have explained the principle of the Agreement, in which I gather the right hon. Gentleman concurs. What I have tried to explain is that in practice this does not mean any substantial displacement of Lancashire goods in the Colonies.

What is also important—and I ask Lancashire members to take notice of it—is that in the absence of the continuation of a Sterling Payments Agreement we might have had a bilateral Japanese-Australian agreement which might have forced many more Japanese goods into Australia in competition with Lancashire goods. That must be borne in mind.

Mr. John Edwards: I wonder if we could be given the corresponding figures for the Dominions. The Economic Secretary has given us only half the picture. Lancashire wants to know the whole picture.

Mr. Maudling: In answer to a Private Notice Question, I explained that the figures given by the Dominions for this Agreement were the Dominions' own figures; they were not our figures. They were given in confidence and they are not for publication. We are responsible for the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and what I have endeavoured to show is that this Agreement is in the interests of the United Kingdom—of that there can be no shadow of doubt—and that it is right and proper that the Colonies should have this Agreement—and of that there can be no shadow of doubt. What I have also endeavoured to show is that there wild not be any serious injury to any industry in this country.
We were told that we should have consulted the importers. I think I have dealt with that point. If we consulted people in this country in competition with Japan we should also consult people whose trade with Japan will be completely cut off, and we should also consult the consumers—and that is not an easy thing to do.
The duty of the Government was clear. It was to obtain the best possible Agreement in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom and of the sterling area with the minimum possible disturbance to any industry in this country. That is what we have done. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that that is what we have done. As they know it, and as they show it by this half-hearted Motion on the Order Paper, I ask them to recognise in the House what they know in their hearts to be true.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I make one thing clear? I hope that it is not yet out of order or improper in this House for Members of Parliament to speak on behalf of their constituents. That is what I propose to do for 10 or 12 minutes in this debate, because my constituents live by making cotton goods and by selling them. They live almost only by that.
What the Economic Secretary has just said, unless I have woefully misunderstood his argument, which is no doubt quite possible, is that this Agreement is a good thing in the interests of British economy as a whole. It is a good thing in the interests of British economy as a whole because it is in those interests that we should trade in sterling with Japan. Japan cannot trade with us in sterling unless she has the sterling. Japan cannot have sterling unless she buys goods from us and sells us goods. The goods which she wishes to sell are largely textile goods. Perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am right?

Mr. Maudling: I said that the goods which the Colonies wish to buy are textile goods.

Mr. Silverman: The goods which the Colonies wish to buy are largely textile and, therefore, the goods which the Japanese wish to sell to the Colonies are the goods which the Colonies wish to buy. These goods are textiles. That is only what I said before the interruption. I think that we are now clear on that point—that Japan has to acquire the sterling which she needs by selling to the Colonies the textiles which now Lancashire sells to the Colonies. Am I right? Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with that; if so, will he tell me what is wrong with it?

Mr. Maudling: I explained in great detail what the effects are likely to be on Lancashire exports to the Colonies.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether the Japanese saw the hon. Gentleman coming or not, but I assure him that he cannot see me coming. I heard him say later in his speech why this was not going to do Lancashire any harm, and before I come to that part of his speech, I wanted to be sure that I had got this argument right so far.

Mr. J. T. Price: It is as old a trick as the other one commented upon by the "Manchester Guardian."

Mr. Silverman: It may be, but I want to getclear, first of all, that the object of the Agreement is to enable Japan to sell textile goods partly to this country and to sell more to the Colonies. I take it that the hon. Gentleman agrees on that. Then he went on to say—I want to be perfectly fair to his argument so far as I could understand it—that nevertheless this would not do Lancashire any harm because Lancashire, if she does the thing properly, will be able to sell as much textiles to the Colonies as she sold before.
The hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me that that could only be true if the Colonies bought globally more textile goods than they have been buying. I will readily give way if there is any fault in my arithmetic, because I am not very good at it, and I am not an economist; but I take it for granted that if Japan is to sell more textiles than she has been lately selling, which is one object of the Agreement, and the Colonies are to buy more goods from Lancashire, the Colonies must be buying more textile goods as a whole than they bought before.

Mr. Maudling: Japanese goods may well displace many textiles that came from other areas than Lancashire.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with my argument or disagreeing. I take it for granted that he made the Agreement to enable Japan to acquire sterling largely by selling textile goods to the Colonies. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman this. Supposing his safeguards come off, and supposing, as a result, Japan does not sell as many textile goods to the Colonies or acquire the sterling that is contemplated by this Agreement; supposing Lancashire does succeed in meeting the competition and keeping its own goods on the Colonial markets in competition with the Japanese goods and, therefore, Japan does not acquire the sterling which is the object of the Agreement, what will the Government then do? By its showing, the Agreement would have failed, in its purpose, by its showing the Government would have to make a new agreement, and by its showing they would


have to raise the quotas again, because unless they did the Japanese would not acquire the sterling.
I am putting a serious argument to the hon. Gentleman. If the object of the Agreement is to enable Japan to acquire sterling, which she has not got at present, by dint of selling textile goods on the Colonial markets, if she does not acquire sterling by so doing, to be logical and consistent the Government will have to revise the Agreement at the end of the year, not by way of reducing these agreed quotas but by way of increasing them.

Mr. Maudling: Until they get up to the level of the reduced quota there is no object in having a larger one.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is now saying that if by these quotas the object of this Agreement, which was to enable Japan to earn sterling, fails, then he will abandon this Agreement altogether—

Mr. Maudling: indicated dissent

Mr. Silverman: —because it will have failed to achieve its purpose and there will be no object in increasing the quotas because they will not be able to fulfil them.
It seems to me perfectly clear that the object of the Agreement, crudely stated, is to prevent the Lancashire textile trade and the Staffordshire pottery trade from selling goods which they are now selling to consumers in this country or in the Colonies, and that it is held that that is a good thing in the general economy.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely the answer is that the Government's object is not achieved unless the Japanese fulfil their quota. If Lancashire, by being highly efficient, prevents Japan from fulfilling its quota by fair means, the Japanese must be allowed to fulfil it by foul means and unfair trading.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. It must be one or the other. If it is the object of the Agreement to enable Japan to acquire sterling, and if Japan fails to acquire sterling, either the policy must be abandoned altogether or the situation must be alleviated so much further as to make it easier for the Japanese to do that, which

is the overriding object of the Agreement as a whole.
Let us turn to the Motion. I dare say the Economic Secretary does not agree, but if the Lancashire textile trade, both those who employ and those who are employed, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's disagreement, by and large, agree with my view of the position, does the hon. Gentleman think that if he had consulted the Lancashire textile interests or the pottery interests beforehand, they would have agreed with the proposition? He knows perfectly well that they would not, and that the reason the Government have so conspicuously failed to consult either the textile industry or the pottery industry is that they know perfectly well that neither of those industries would have accepted any such agreement had it been asked in time. Indeed, the Government fight shy in an almost pathological way of consulting Lancashire about anything.
The President of the Board of Trade recently made an Order about a Development Area in North-East Lancashire.North-East Lancashire is very dissatisfied with the result of that Order. It has a development committee. All the local authorities covered by the order form a joint development committee. That committee asked the Members of Parliament representing—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Motion.

Mr. Silverman: I am only giving an instance of the lack of consultation, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It will not take a moment to finish. That joint development committee asked that the President of the Board of Trade should see the three Members of Parliament representing the area, who sit on either side of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not pursue that further.

Mr. Silverman: The point can be finished in one sentence by saying that the President of the Board of Trade—

Mr. Richard Fort: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have made my ruling quite clear to the hon. Member.

Mr. Silverman: What the Government have to decide is whether they wish to retain a cotton industry in this country and, if they wish to retain it, at what level they wish to retain it. What is the Government's plan for the cotton industry? What is their long-term policy for it?

Mr. Cyril Bence: They have not got one.

Mr. Silverman: The cotton industry knows perfectly well that it is living in a changing world. It is not asking for a narrow protectionism. It is not asking that it should be protected from the winds off air competition. It is not asking that no matter what it costs the rest of the country or the rest of the world, it must be secure in the employment of its present level—or any level—of production or sales. It is only asking to know where it is with the Government.

Mr. Bence: They are threadbare.

Mr. Silverman: What plan is the cotton industry to work to? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the memories of cotton workers in this industry are long and bitter. He knows perfectlywell that we cannot make a cotton worker by transferring an agricultural labourer or a coalminer from some other part of the country. If good cotton workers are to be trained, we must begin to train them young. Their experiences of the industry over many years made most cotton workers that I have ever met make up their minds that they would never again put their children into the industry.
After the war, they were appealed to by the Labour Government, by the Tory Government, by the employers' organisations, by the chambers of commerce and by the trade unions themselves, co-operating with everyone else, to forget their old fears, and they went back. Confidence has been restored, but it is a plant of very slow growth. Every time confidence begins slowly, painfully, hesitantly to return to the cotton industry of Lancashire, the Government strike a new blow and destroy that confidence.
And for what is all this being done? In the interests of free trade? In the interests of freedom for the Colonies to buy what they like? In the interests of

an advancing and improving standard of living for the workers of Japan, the workers in our Colonial Territories, or the workers of Lancashire? Do the Government really suggest that we can assist any of those courses by taking the products of sweated producers in one country and forcing them down the throats of sweated consumers in another? It must be quite clear that we cannot do that.
It is recognised that cotton may have its contribution to make in the reorientation of British Trade. It may have to fit into quite a new place in world trade, but my right hon. Friend was perfectly right when he said that if that is to be done, we must carefully define what our target is, and move towards it by slow and steady steps, adapting the industry to the new situation at every step. That cannot be done unless we have the confidence of the people on both sides in the industry, and that confidence cannot be gained if there is failure to consult those people and take them along at each step as it is made.
That is exactly what the Government have failed to do. They have failed to make any attempt to do it, and even now they do not promise to do it. It is perfectly clear that no one concerned with the lives of the people in the industry, orwith the general problems involved, could possibly support this Trade Agreement arrived at in this way without safeguards of any kinds. If there are hon. Gentlemen opposite representing Lancashire constituencies who think that they can, I hope that they will say so, not merely here but in their constituencies. They have put down an Amendment to my right hon. Friend's Motion—and if the Economic Secretary calls ours a half-hearted Motion, I wonder what epithet he could find to describe the Amendment:
…acknowledges the sense of responsibility to the nation and to the Colonies which Her Majesty's Government has shown and its impartiality in taking this decision, and. whilst recognising that advantages will accrue to the trade of the Empire, urges Her Majesty's Government"—
Urges them to do what? [Hon. Members: "Read on."] I suggest—urges them, now that the horse has departed, to put as many locks on the door as the progress of the horse during the next 12 months may seem to require.


That is what they are asking. It is an indeterminate Motion. It is an attempt to make the best of both worlds. Those hon. Members opposite representing Lancashire divisions should make up their minds whether it is their wish to be of any assistance to the Lancashire industry or not. It is all very well to be loyal to the Government, and no doubt it is one of their duties and one of the necessary loyalties of their lives. But they have no right to be more loyal to the Government than to their constituents.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I beg to move, to leave out from "House"to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
acknowledges the sense of responsibility to the nation and to the Colonies which Her Majesty's Government has shown and its impartiality in taking this decision, and, whilst recognising that advantages will accrue to the trade of the Empire, urges Her Majesty's Government that any further arrangements should provide such safeguards of the interests of the textile industry as the experience of the coming year may show to be necessary.
This Amendment has already been misquoted to the House by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). One of the difficulties in this debate is that we have not got any documents before us. It makes it very much more difficult to formulate an argument adequately or criticise proposals which have been put forward without all the documents that are necessary. I have no doubt that in due course they will be forthcoming, but they are not before us tonight.
I feel it my duty to speak on behalf of myself and other Lancashire Members, all of whom, I regret to say, will not succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, owing to the lack of time. I should tell the House that there is very genuine anxiety in Lancashire about this Agreement, particularly in those areas which are largely associated with the cotton trade.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman put down his Amendment?

Mr. Assheton: I have just said exactly why we have put it down.
The part of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne did not read out—

Mr. S. Silverman: Which I paraphrased.

Mr. Assheton: —which he says he paraphrased, concluded by urging:
Her Majesty's Government that any further arrangements should provide such safeguards of the interests of the textile industry as the experience of the coming year may show to be necessary.

Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Blackburn rose—

Mr. Assheton: No, I amsorry; I really cannot give way. There is not much time, and we have to conclude at 10 o'clock. Very few of my hon. Friends will have a chance to speak in the debate so I will try to voice their opinions.

Mr. Blackburn: In the time the right hon. Gentleman has taken to say that I could have asked my question.

Mr. Assheton: I want to tell the House that there is genuine anxiety in Lancashire, which, I hope, will be allayed to some extent by the speech which has been made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has related to us some additional facts of which we were not previously aware. I understand very clearly the Government's difficulties in trying to make an Agreement of this sort. They have to do their best for the country and for trade in the Empire as a whole, which hon. Members opposite have recognised, but I cannot refrain from concluding that the very definite benefits which accrue from this—and some of them may accrue to industry in Lancashire—are, to some extent, at the expense of the textile trade.
What I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade, first, is this: does he not think that the contribution demanded from the Lancashire textile industry is unduly heavy?

Mr. Silverman: He says there is not any.

Mr. Assheton: The Economic Secretary advanced very clever arguments and put his case extremely well. But I am not quite sure that people who have not lived in Lancashire all their lives appreciate the emotional importance in Lancashire of the word "Japan. "No amount of logical argument will dispose of that feeling. I remember Mr. Lloyd George once saying that the English people—he


being a Welshman—had very long memories and that it was very dangerous to rouse them.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Lloyd George was born in Manchester.

Mr. Assheton: He claimed to be a Welshman, and living in Manchester gave him an opportunity of knowing something about the English people. He said that fighting against ghosts was a dreadful thing. That is what we are up against in Lancashire.
Some hon. Members may remember that we had a debate in the House when the Japanese Peace Treaty was signed. On that occasion I took the opportunity to say something about the dangers and anxieties of the Lancashire cotton trade. I reminded the House then of some of the history of the industry, which Lancashire people still remember. In 1913, Lancashire wove 8,000 million yards of cloth, of which 7,000 million yards were exported, 3,000 million yards going to India. Then the war came, India played a great part in it and, as a result, was granted a tariff. In a few years those 3,000 million yards were no longer being exported to India and the trade of Lancashire was reduced to one-eighth of what it had been, at the same time as Japanese competition was beginning.
This was described by Godfrey Armitage as being the greatest retreat in the history of industry, and with that great retreat in indusry came great suffering, which was gallantly borne and only properly understood by those who lived in Lancashire at that time. About 800 mills were closed down, over 350,000 looms were put out of action, 21 million spindles were destroyed, employer after employer went bankrupt. That is what happened, and the memory of that cannot be erased from the minds of the people in Lancashire. To the operatives in Lancashire the Japanese were blacklegs, paying low wages, working too long hours and employing child labour. As I said on that occasion, I cannot be expected to go to Blackburn and shout, "Long live Japan."
The feeling in Lancashire today, a very strong one, is that not sufficient account has been taken of the interests of Lancashire trade. That may be wrong, but the feeling is there and no one can deny

it. Only a few months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Bolton and made a speech urging the businessmen of Lancashire to export more. Minister after Minister has made a similar speech. If I may say so, we have heard that cry to increase exports almost ad nauseam.
Here we have an Agreement by which it will be made much more difficult for Lancashire to export. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has put the case, and I hope he is right. He maintains that it will not affect adversely the trade of Lancashire, or not very much. But the people in Lancashireare not so confident as my hon. Friend; they fear that they will lose some of their markets and they do not know where to replace them.
One word about consultation. There has been much criticism about the lack of consultation. I do not propose to go into the past, but as the President of the Board of Trade will be going to Lancashire shortly, and no doubt will meet the Cotton Board, I suggest to him that he takes the opportunity of meeting and consulting both sides of the industry. The Cotton Board is not quite that. I want him to meet and consult the employers and the workers, to put his position to them and to explain things to them. If he does that, I am sure it will be of great advantage.

Mr. Harold Davies: And drop off at North Staffordshire on the way.

Mr. Assheton: My right hon. Friend can always do that if he has time. [An Hon. Member: "He will not get much farther."] Many people in Lancashire hold the view that there is some feeling in Whitehall that the Lancashire cotton industry is expendable. When my right hon. Friend replies to this debate, I want him to tell us that there is nothing whatever in that and to accept our Amendment.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I listened very closely to the argument of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I usually find that he expresses a case with very great clarity and I have no difficulty in understanding him, but tonight I had great difficulty in following his argument. It appears to me that the policy of the Government is that Lancashire must fail in competition with Japan


otherwise this Agreement fails. That is my interpretation. If that is correct it reinforces our fears and apprehensions.
The Economic Secretary gave the impression that the renewal of the Agreement is no different from the original Agreement, but there is a vast difference between the attitude of the employers towards the renewal of the Agreement and their attitude towards the original Agreement. I know the cotton employers of Lancashire very well. Some of them are very able gentlemen. I have great respect for those who came to see the President of the Board of Trade yesterday. They do not seem to be very much impressed by the Government's reasons for making this Agreement. These gentlemen are quite all right, except that, in the main, they are supporters of the party opposite. That is my only objection to them, but in spite of that, I repeat, they are not impressed.
I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) had to say, but I shall not be able to express myself quite as unemotionally as he did, because during the 1920s and 1930s to which he referred, I existed as an unemployed operative and a trade union officer among the people of Lancashire. I saw their anxieties, their sufferings and almost their disintegration. It is not surprising that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the very mention of the name of Japan and of Japanese competition raises emotion, fear, and anger in Lancashire because of the people's very bitter experience. Anyone who has lived among them must understand that. Logic, particularly of the type advocated tonight, will not convince the people of Lancashire that they have nothing to worry about. I hope that the Economic Secretary and the President of the Board of Tracie will come to Lancashire later in the year and argue out their case with the people there.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West referred to the impact on our trade in the 1920s, when we lost our great India market. I agree with him. One of the reasons for the sudden loss of that market was the boycott of Lancashire goods because of our continuing occupation of India. Then we had the impact of Japanese competition in the 1930s. The result was catastrophic falls in production in Lancashire mills and mass unemployment. Lancashire people today fear that this Agreement signifies another catastro-

phic fall in production. The Government have a responsibility to allay their suspicions and fears. I have grave doubts about what the situation in Lancashire will be later in the year.
I have a great respect for the ability of the Economic Secretary, but, without being immodest, I hope, after 30 years' experience in industry and in close contact with its problems—the ebb and flow of trade and markets—I may be allowed to say that while I have great respect for the economists and experts, and appreciate their knowledge, I have found that my own fears and my own wishful thinking have proved correct as often as those of the experts. I have great fears on this issue today and I believe that my fears of the consequences of this Agreement, based on experience, are as reliable as the forecasts of economists on the other side of the House.
The Lancashire cotton textile industry responded loyally to appeals of the Government and their predecessors to build up production, to build up exports and help towards the vital economic recovery of this country. Our industry, employers and unions, co-operated loyally—perhaps better than in any other industry in the country. We built up manpower from approximately 200,000 to 330,000. We took in thousands of foreign workers to help in this effort, much against the feelings of many of our staunch trade union members. We built up the manpower to a level which many of us thought was too high and which could not be sustained. But we did that and the reward is an agreement of this kind that strikes at the very roots of our export trade, that can have a very sudden effect and will precipitate uncertainty and, I fear, widespread unemployment in our industry again.
It must be remembered that half Japan's export trade to the sterling area is textiles and it is obvious that the Lancashire textile industry will feel the main impact of any increase in Japanese exports. Will the Agreement be to the benefit of the sterling area as a whole? I accept that perhaps it may be. I am by no means sure—I have grave doubts—that this Agreement will be to the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole and I am certain that the Agreement will not be to the benefit of the Lancashire textile industry.


Unemployment and insecurity are unemployment and insecurity, whatever the causes. I would challenge right hon. Gentlemen opposite to go to Lancashire if we have unemployment, which I fear, and tell them, "You need not worry, boys and girls, you are making a sacrifice because you are keeping people in jobs in other parts of the country." That will not wash at all; that will not do.
In view of the inherent dangers to Lancashire of this Agreement, I think it was a fundamental mistake that prior consultation did not take place with both sides of the industry. As the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West remarked, having regard to what Japan means in the minds of Lancashire people psychologically, it would have been common sense to have consulted both sides of industry before concluding an Agreement of this kind. I am sure that, if prior consultation had been entered into, the weight of opinion would have been so strong that modification would have been made in the proposed agreement. As a result of the disturbance which is taking place in our industry now due to the Cotton Bill—which, I suppose, will soon become an Act—the winding up of the Raw Cotton Commission and the impact of this Agreement, we shall have a very serious situation to face in Lancashire before this year is out. Those two things can quite easily synchronise and create a very difficult situation.
The actions of this Government, not their protestations, clearly indicate to Lancashire that this Government have written Lancashire off as an effective part of the national economy. That will have very serious repercussions in the County Palatine. I am not denying that Japan has an economic problem, one which is probably more serious than our own, but what I do protest about is that an attempt is being made to save Japan's economy at the expense of Lancashire.
I know that Japan has a population of 88 million, and that it is growing at the rate of 1·3 million a year. I might add that I have had the opportunity of examining conditions on the spot, not only in Japan but in China and India in the post-war period, so what I have to say is at least based on some first-hand experience.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Speak for us as well; we shall not get a chance.

Mr. Thornton: The danger I foresee is that this Agreement will result in a sudden expansion of Japanese exports of cotton textiles. What will be the first effect of that in Japan? It will encourage her to extend even further her spindle capacity, which is already over-expanded. In 1949, Japan had 3½ million spindles. Her spindleage grew at the rate of approximately a million per year until 1952, when it was 7½ million. A significant fact about 1953 was that her expansion slowed almost to nothing. Her spindleage expansion was only 100,000 last year. In my view, that was a result of the quota arrangement and the restriction of her markets, which was a warning to Japan that she might have over-expanded.
I forecast that during 1954 there will be another million or 750,000 expansion of Japanese spindleage—

Mr. J. T. Price: Thanks to this Agreement.

Mr. Thornton: —thanks to this Agreement.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And American finance capital.

Mr. Thornton: That will have the effect of again distorting Japanese production at the expense of the trading communities of the world.
Japanese labour costs in the case of cotton textiles are, according to the chief statistician of the Cotton Board, about a third of the labour costs in Lancashire. That is a condition against which we cannot possibly compete under unrestricted trading conditions. We should be quite clear about that. It is a fantastic situation. Japan is a phenomenon of the 20th century because her industrial growth, her operative, technical and managerial skill have been achieved on the basis of an Asiatic standard of life. Japan is the only country that has done that.
Never since the Industrial Revolution have there been such wide disparities in labour costs as those between Japan and the Western countries. That is a problem which Her Majesty's Government ought to be facing up to. I do not say that because of that Japan should be excluded from trading with the world. She must trade, but this unique situa-


tion obviously calls for some serious plans to attempt to build Japan into the developing of the world without disrupting and undermining the trade and living standards of people in the Western world.
That is a very serious problem. I suggest that the Government have not attempted to give serious consideration to a plan that will merge that great industrial people into a plan for increasing living standards without undermining the living standards of the Western world. The United States of America, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) indicated, will not accept these low labour cost goods. Even during the period of the full operation of the sterling area restrictions, the imports of Japanese cloth into America represented only one-third of 1 per cent. of American textile production. That, apparently, is the extent of their willingness to help in terms of trade and not aid.
I wish to put some questions to the President of the Board of Trade. Do the Government think that Lancashire is expendable? Lancashire requires an answer. They want action as well as protestations. Do the Government think the cotton textile industry is too large and that it should be contracted? I wish to make clear that I, who have spent a lifetime in the industry, would not make any claim at all that the industry should be static, or should not be allowed to contract, or that any artificial attempt should be made to maintain the size of the industry.
I protest, however, at an action which may lead to a catastrophic fall in production and mass unemployment. In my judgment, the Lancashire industry, or at least the trade union side, would be amenable to a plan for a gradual reduction in the size of the industry. What we do not want is a catastrophic fall which would mean mass unemployment. We have had more than one bellyful of that in Lancashire.
Do the Government intend to pursue their policy of non-consultation, even when violent changes in the pattern of employment are involved? That is a very important question. Those of our people whose livelihoods are at stake have a right to be consulted before vital decisions of this kind are made. Their whole feeling of security is at stake. They

should not be considered as mere numbers, or statistics, or as pieces on a chess board.
Have the Government a plan for working a public co-operative trading policy which would take into account this problem of Japan to which I have referred? The Government—and I am not complaining of it—have played a part in attempting to build a co-operative collective defence system on an ordered plan. But their trading policy shows no co-operation at all. It is a return to unrestricted cut-throat competition. I give this warning, that the political unity on which the Western defence system is based cannot live in the face of a return to cut-throat competition by the participating nations.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Ian Horobin: As a Lanoashire Member representing a constituency entirely dependent on cotton, I have naturally considered this Agreement carefully. I think the House will at any rate acquit me of any particular sympathy with Japan, for there can be few, if any, hon. Members of this House who have suffered so much as I, for I was for several years a prisoner of war.
We must, however, face facts, and I am bound to say that on the ground of the general advantage to this country and to the Empire—I will come to the particular Lancashire point in a moment—the case as I see it for continuing the Agreement signed in 1951 is overwhelming. As has been pointed out, Japan is in the position in which we were in 1951—heavily in the red. She has either to cut her imports of our goods, our sterling exports made by the workers of this country, or she has to export more. Surely, at a time when many hon. Members opposite take the view, which I do not altogether share, that we may be faced with a continuance of the American recession, the argument for balancing our trade at a high level and not at a low level is all the more important.
If we did not do something of this sort—and nobody opposite has said what we should do—the whole of the British policy in the economic sphere is sheer nonsense, and not only for this side of the House. It was to a great extent owing to Sir Stafford Cripps that we had the policy of going to Washington and saying "Ferranti's and English Electric must be


allowed to earn dollars." It is sheer nonsense, if we then go to Tokio and say, "You are in the same position but we are not going to let you earn dollars."There are, as has been pointed out, something like 90 million people in Japan cooped up on an island much poorer in natural resources than our own, and if they cannot earn their keep they will starve. As reasonable people, we must not consider solely our own constituencies, but must bear that point in mind.
The Government are to be congratulated on turning their backs on what would undoubtedly have been an easy way out, but would have got us entangled in a new Brazil arrangement whereby we would pretend to export but would be really giving the stuff away. There was really nothing else the Government could do. I need not spend any time referring to the moral issue, because I am glad to see that we are all in agreement about the moral impropriety of trying to stop the Colonies doing what they want to do with their own money. We were told that there should have been safeguards, but nobody found any practicable safeguard to put into the Agreement in August, 1951, when the need of that sort of thing was much greater because we were facing a serious balance of payments problem. The people who are always priding themselves on their power to see the future did not perceive that the cotton slump of 1952 was not very far away. For all these reasons, I feel that, however unpalatable this may be for Lancashire, something of the kind was absolutely inevitable and must, in honesty, be commended.
Having said that, I must ask the Government some questions. I expect that when the Minister replies we shall be given a little more assurance—we were given some—about exactly the scale of the effect that this may involve for us. We may argue how much damage it will do to us, but nobody can dispute that this Agreement will make things more difficult for Lancashire's export cotton. It is very important that we should have some idea of the scale involved.
I want to offer my own guess, and if it is wrong I hope my right hon. Friend will tell me so. No one has given a guess so far in this debate. So far as I can see, Japan has to make up something of the order of £81 million with her general exports into the sterling area. That will

get her back to the 1952 level. That is all that this involves. We are merely getting back to where we were before the general restoration of our own balance of payments.
Coming to cotton, we are told that the Agreement may involve something like £7 million in the non-entrepôt colonial markets. Here is a point related to the remarks addressed to us by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). A very great portion of the sterling which Japan is to be allowed to earn will be earned in the entrepôt trade. If she did not earn it, somebody else would, and it is obviously to our advantage to send this stuff to Aden and Singapore. Of the £81 million which has to be earned this year, if something of the order of £66 million has to be earned in that admirable way it can do no harm.
That leaves something like £25 million, and, taking the normal proportion, it would appear that of that perhaps £15 million will be involved in non-entrepôt trade. If those figures are right, I estimate that the increase in cotton to the non-entrepôt Colonies will be of the order of £5, £6 or £7 million a year which would represent, say, 60 million yards of cotton piece goods.
If that is roughly right—we shall know later on—what is the scale of the threat to Lancashire? Sixty million yards into the Colonies will not bring the Japanese exports appreciably, if at all, above the level which Japan was exporting in 1952. I draw the attention of those hon. Members opposite who are anxious to the fact that if that be so, then Lancashire exports into the Colonies in 1952 were within one million yards of what they are expected to be this year.
Therefore, if I am right, the worst that is likely to happen is that Japan will get back to the level of exports to the Colonies which she had at a time when we were able to keep our present exports going. This seems to me only one more instance of the incurably restrictionist attitude of hon. Members opposite. They think that there is only a certain amount, and that what one person gets another must lose.
I should like—very greatly daring—to suggest to Lancashire that they are perhaps doing in this matter of Japanese


competition what the Army is always accused of doing—preparing for the late war. Are they not, perhaps, barking up the wrong tree? May not these Japanese exports be at the expense of what is rapidly becoming a much more dangerous competitor to Lancashire and one from whom it is impossible to protect Lancashire because she is in the Commonwealth? I mean, of course, India.
I will give two figures to the House. Supposing I am roughly right and that Japan gets back to where she was in 1952, the position is that in all the last five years Japan will have been exporting to the Colonies round about 200million yards, which is less than before the war. Before the war, India was exporting to the Colonies 39 million yards. The Indian goods going into the Colonies, so far from being less than what they were before the war, are now something like seven times as great. Before the war the figure was 39 million yards, and it is expected this year to be over 200 million yards.
For all these reasons—I honestly do not see that anybody has told us what else we could do—it seems at least reasonable to believe that the damage to Lancashire will be nothing like as serious as is suspected, and it may deflect Lancashire's attention from what is really needed if we hold out hopes that she can protect her Colonial markets by such means as are suggested here, which obviously could not be applied to her Indian competitors.
I have only one other point to make before I conclude. Are we not beginning in this debate to overlook not only a possibly more serious competitor, but a possibly more profitable market? It is in the more expensive goods going into the great Dominions that it seems to me that we have at least as good, if not a better, chance of building up and preserving our exports. Just as this Agreement is helping to make a solvent Japan, so it will help to make a solvent Australia. We all know what happened when Australia had to cancel her contracts—some of us felt very bitterly about it—because she could not pay for them. If this Agreement gives her a better wool cheque, it may be very much to the advantage of Lancashire in a market which has greater prospects than the Colonies.
For those reasons I submit that, in the national interest and in Lancashire's

interest, we are right in supporting this Agreement. There are reasonable grounds for supposing that the more extreme anxieties of Lancashire may not be fulfilled, but I beg of my right hon. Friend, in company with every speaker, not to underestimate the psychological, I might almost say the spiritual, importance of this question of Japanese competition in Lancashire.
If anyone comes to my constituency and holds an open-air meeting, as likely as not he will hold it on the grave and bones of a cotton mill which was destroyed by Japan, just as London's buildings were destroyed by Hitler. It is no use being half-hearted about this. Lancashire is worried. We hope that her fears will not come true. I hope that my right hon. Friend will put it beyond all doubt that in the year for which this new Agreement runs the situation will be watched most carefully and, if our more optimistic conception of this Agreement should be mistaken, we shall lose no time in making quite sure that Lancashire does not once again go through what she went through in the 1930s.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. May I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move, "That the debate be now adjourned," in order to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consult the Leader of the House, so that the country's grievances can be rightly reflected by representatives from the constituencies which are—as is the country as a whole—vitally affected, having regard to our serious economic position? Will the President consult the Leader of the House in order that this debate may be adjourned, so that another day can be provided? I want to make it quite clear that in asking your leave to do this, I am making no reflection upon the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: This has been a very short debate for a subject which interests a number of Members on both sides of the House. Many hon. Members who have desired to speak have not been able to be called. At this stage I cannot accept a Motion for the adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member must make his representations for a continuation of the debate in some other way, if that is the desire of the Opposition.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thank you for the sympathetic manner with which you have dealt with the point, Mr. Speaker, but we are in a difficulty. Can this question be raised again before the President concludes his speech?

Mr. Speaker: All I am concerned with is to accept or not to accept a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and I cannot accept this Motion at this stage. No doubt what the hon. Member has said has been listened to, and further consideration can no doubt be given to the matter.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: There must be very many hon. Members on both sides of the House who will share the feeling which has just been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). It is very unsatisfactory that we have not a longer time to debate this question, and I would urge all right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether they cannot find a way to afford a further opportunity for other Members to speak on this very important matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) having made it quite plain where we stand in relation to the Colonies, I would make it equally plain that we are not opposed to a payments agreement—even to a sterling payments agreement. Under the Labour Government many such agreements were made. We recognise that in present circumstances a high degree of bilateral agreement has to be reached with Japan. We do not, however, accept the view that there must be an absolute parity of trade. Indeed, I was a little surprised to hear the Economic Secretary imply that there was something within the Agreement which made it impossible for Japan to buy dollars from the International Monetary Fund, I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade this question specifically: during the negotiations, what discussions took place about the Japanese dollar accumulation? What discussions took place about the extent to which it was reasonable for some part of this trade to be financed by the purchase of sterling with dollars?
The Economic Secretary based almost the whole of his case on the idea that the Agreement which the Government

have just made was no more than a renewal or an extension of the 1951 Agreement. This I contest emphatically. It has certain entirely new features, and it is those entirely new features which, I believe, are causing the gravest anxiety in many centres, for example, the Potteries.
What are the new features? First, I want to mention the token quotas for Japanese imports into the United Kingdom. Goods will come here which have not been admitted since before the war, and it is, I think, wrong to suggest that because the quantities are small they will have no impact upon our economy. It is true not only in economic theory but also in practice that if we have the import of low-cost goods of this kind, probably dumped anyhow, in circumstances where there is a buyers' market, then even marginal quantities may have a quite catastrophic effect on the conditions in the market. That was a situation which, it seemed to me, the Economic Secretary ignored completely.
The second feature which is different is this: the supply position is different. Since 1951 the supply position has altered very considerably. My own anxiety, frankly, is this: I am afraid that if the Japanese exports to the Colonies are to be increased by about £7,500,000, which is what I understood the Economic Secretary to say, then the bulk of it will be; at the expense of Lancashire, which would not have been the case even two years ago. The "Manchester Guardian" of 6th February said:
Already in East Africa buyers have ceased placing orders in Lancashire pending further information about what Japan will be able and willing to sell.
I am desperately anxious about this because I feel that the Government have not taken into consideration the quite considerable change in the supply position.
Let me take a third point. We have now had some two years' experience—indeed, more than two years'—since the 1951 Agreement. The Government are aware that the Japanese have a double price policy; they must know that the Japanese are subsidising their exports. I want the President of the Board of Trade to tell us how much discussion took place, inthese negotiations, about Japanese export subsidies. That is the kind of thing we are entitled to know.


We tried to write some assurances about trade practices into the Japanese Peace Treaty. We have had further experience since then. Take the question to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton devoted some attention—the pirating of designs. Will the President please tell us how much discussion took place on this matter in the negotiations? It is idle for anyone to pretend that these matters are not relevant. They are extremely relevant when we are considering the circumstances in which we should open the door of trade wider for Japan, even opening the door here in the United Kingdom.
I feel that the Economic Secretary's speech was most remarkable for what he did not say. We understand that the Japanese are expected to export some £200 million of goods, but what we do not know is what they are expected to export nor do we know where the £200 million worth of goods are expected to go. This is something which it is important for us to know. It is important for the people in Lancashire to know, and it is this which they do not know.
The Economic Secretary said that there would be £25 million worth of textiles going to the Colonies. When I asked him for a corresponding figure for the Dominions, he declined to give it; he declined even to give us a total figure, and it certainly would be no breach of confidence to tell us. We have not a clue, any of us, where the £200 million is going—[Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh, but we, in fact, do not know tonight, nor does Lancashire know tonight, the answer to the questions I am putting, and I want the President to tell us what goods are to be exported and where he anticipates they are going.
Unless that information can be given, nobody in Lancashire can begin to plan or prepare for the future. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) did his best to make an estimate, but he had to stop at the Colonies because he, too, could not make an estimate for the Dominions. The Government have this information—at least, I suppose they have; they would be even more inept than I suppose them to be if they had not—and if they have it, we ought to have it.

The gravamen of the charge in our Motion is that the Government have entered into this Agreement without consultations. I do not suppose it would be true to say that the Government did not consult anybody. But I should like the President to tell us what consultations, in fact, took place. Were there consultations with the suppliers of visible exports to Japan? Does the President deny that there were consultations with the oil companies? If consultations took place with the oil companies, surely it would have been reasonable, even if there was a considerable disagreement, for consultations to have taken place with Lancashire.
The Economic Secretary, in his opening remarks, said that he relied solely on economic arguments. That, if I may say so, is where he went wrong. In these negotiations economic arguments have prevailed in a narrow sense. No consideration has been given to the psychology of Lancashire or the Potteries, no attempt has been made to understand how the people of these areas will react to an Agreement of this kind.
The contributions which Ministers are expected to make to discussions, to reinforce what their experts tell them with their understanding of the psychology of people, has, in fact, been notably absent. I would ask the House to consider the position in Lancashire. The dreadful times between the wars have left their marks, not only on Lancashire towns, but on Lancashire men and women. My former constituency of Blackburn, as late as 1938, had one-third of its people out of work, and they have not forgotten.
Consider the great difficulties, after the war, in trying to build up the labour force; how hard it was, not merely for those of us who were trying to persuade Lancashire to do this, but how hard it was for union leaders, councillors and parents to be persuaded in the light of their previous experience. Then, consider what is done to a community when there is one shock after another—for an industry burdened at the moment by Purchase Tax, by a D Scheme, which is increasingly disastrous, and with all the shock that came from the recession, now to have this.


Does the President know what he has done? Does he recognise that he has undermined the morale of people in Lancashire? Does he recognise that he has made it almost impossible to recruit young people into the cotton industry? These are the things that he ought to have known. Some words from Gerard Manley Hopkins were in my mind, words that I take right out of their context, but which Lancashire could very well say to the President of the Board of Trade:
Wert thou my enemy, O them my friend, How wouldst thou worse, I wonder, than thou dost
Defeat, thwart me…?
We accuse the Government of having behaved without any understanding of the interests of Lancashire and of having made no attempt to meet their susceptibilities. We believe that it was wrong of them, however much it may have been desirable to have a Sterling Payments Agreement with Japan, to do this, in these circumstances, without consultation and without getting some assurances on Japanese trade practices.

9.31 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I welcome the chance to say a few words about the Agreement. The speech of the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) was shorter than the one with which the debate opened, but I think the House will agree that it was a rather better one. So far as we on this side are concerned, we make no apology for this Payments Agreement. We commend it to the House because we believe it to be a good Agreement.
The House presently has to decide whether to accept the Motion which the Opposition have tabled. I have listened to the debate upon it and I still do not know whether the Opposition are in favour of or against this Payments Agreement. I thought I should know when the right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat, but it was perfectly plain that the agreement to which he was referring was not a sterling payments agreement, because he wanted it financed in one part in dollars.

Mr. J. Edwards: rose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am sorry; I have very little time.

I want to show three things, First, I believe that the Agreement is in the commercial interests and the export interests, not only of this country, but of the rest of the British Commonwealth. Much is said about an Imperial policy, but on occasions we should do something of this kind which really fosters the trade of the Commonwealth. Second, I believe that these negotiations were properly conducted, as I hope to show. Third, I want to say something which, I hope, will relieve the worst fears of Lancashire.
May I say this at once to my hon. Friends who have spoken and who represent Lancashire constituencies? I am not oblivious to the anxieties in the Lancashire cotton textile industry. I know that "Japan" is a word which has an emotional as well as an economic content. I know the memories that go back to Japanese competition before the war. I know the feelings which are prevalent about this issue—the feeling that Japanese wages are only 40 per cent. of our own, and the fear "How can one meet competition under such a margin?"
We are not the only people in the world who have those fears about other people. It so happens that the gap between Japanese wages and British wages is just about the same as the gap between British wages and United States wages.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: A silly argument.

Mr. Thorneycroft: We should remember those things. That is why, when one considers a matter of this kind, one needs to judge it coolly and calmly.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. West (Mr. Assheton) put forcibly and moderately the case for the Lancashire cotton textile industry. He said to me—and I think that his thought was echoed by hon. Members opposite—that there was a feeling that the cotton textile trade was expendable. I want to say that the cotton textile trade is a giant amongst British industries. The economy of the country could not carry onif we were to cast away the vast contribution which that industry makes to our exports throughout the world. It has made a great contribution; it has still a great contribution to make, and it remains a principal concern of Her Majesty's Government to safeguard that industry. I hope in the course of my remarks to show that that is done.
There are many approaches to this particular subject. One can talk about the narrow issue of consultation, or about the interests of Lancashire, or about the colonial situation but in the last resort one has to start off with the big question—is this a good Agreement or a bad one? If it is a good Agreement, then no amount of consultation, no amount of protest, ought to have deterred Her Majesty's Government from signing it. If it is a bad Agreement, then no amount of consultation could conceivably have turned it into a good one.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is a bad Agreement.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a bad Agreement, and I understand that the Motion which has been put down is against it—but no one could gather that from the speeches from the other side. The hon. Member has made the shortest, but in some ways the most effective speech of the debate.
We had two things in mind in regard to the Agreement. From the first moment, it was perfectly clear that we would face considerable political criticism if we went forward with it. The second was that it was in the interests both of this country and of the Commonwealth that we should sign it. I believe that the case in favour of the Agreement—which was put very fully by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—is indeed a devastating one.
The principles of this Agreement were not, as a matter of fact, new; they were embodied in the earlier Agreement entered into by the Socialist Government. Those principles were that trade should be conducted in sterling between this country and Japan—which means that we must buy as well as sell—and that if there was an unbalance of trade, then one side or the other would have to buy more. In this case, as Japan was running a deficit, it meant that we had to buy, but there was quite a long time when Japan was running a very substantial surplus.
Now, what happened? Japan went into a deficit of £100 million. We then had to make up our minds whether to renew the Agreement on the terms and considerations upon which it had operated before—terms and considerations laid down not by us, but which were in the original Agreement which we

are now renewing. From the moment it was decided to renew that Agreement, against the background of that deficit, it was perfectly obvious that a very substantial increase in purchases had to take place.
What would have happened had we not agreed to go ahead? Japan would certain have bought less from the sterling area. That is beyond argument. Japan would, even more certainly, have bought less from us because, to her, our goods were the least essential of any. It is also certain, thirdly, that if the trade balance went the other way—and it is only a little time ago that it was the other way—we ourselves would have had to finance our deficit in dollars. We cannot really have the best of every world and expect that Japan should finance her deficits in dollars and that we should finance ours in sterling. Fourthly, I really think that, after what has happened, to have refused to go ahead with the Sterling Payments Agreement would not have been the best way to encourage Japan to come into the Western comity of nations. I make no apology for mentioning that—commerce and foreign policy are not so divided as all that.
If we were to renew this Agreement it was equally clear that we would get some solid advantages. Sterling would be strengthened—the more trade that is carried on in sterling the stronger it is. The market for sterling goods would be secured, a not unimportant market for United Kingdom goods would be secured, and the purchasing power of the rest of the sterling area would be maintained. I conclude this part of the argument by saying that the case for the Agreement is overwhelming.
It is said, what about consultation? The Motion draws particular attention to the question whether proper consultation took place. Let us be quite clear about this. The Cotton Board was, of course, fully informed of what was happening.

Mr. Harold Davies: And the cotton industry, too?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Not only was the Chairman informed, but he was given full authority to tell the members of his Board exactly what we were doing. The Cotton Board was told. The responsibility for the Agreement belongs to the Government and not to the Cotton


Board. I want to make it clear that the question which the cotton industry wished to discuss was the question of protection. I am not saying that is wrong. It is perfectly entitled to want to do so, but the question we had to decide was not a question of tariffs, but a question whether our balance of payments position justified in the case of the United Kingdom practically a complete embargo on the import of these particular Japanese goods. The Cotton Board has not complained that it was not consulted.

Mr. H. Hynd: The chairman has.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It has not.

Mr. Hynd: He has complained in the Press.

Mr. Thorneycroft: He has said it was not consulted and he is perfectly entitled to say it, but no Government, either this one or the previous one, at any time consulted any individual industry upon the lifting of quotas for balance of payments reasons. Indeed nothing could be more hypocritical than to consult an industry where no negotiation was possible, where discussions would be irrelevant to the issue that was to be decided, and where the advice would probably be ignored.

Dr. H. Morgan: Prejudging the issue.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and I both consulted the cotton industry, for example, at a time when we were concerned about the import of grey cloth. Both of us faced the same difficulty. We found that the Lancashire cotton industry—and I make no complaint about it—was in fact divided upon, that particular issue. But it was a perfectly proper one on which consultation could take place.
The other point I would refer to here on consultation is that of the colonial quotas. Surely it cannot be said that the President of the Board of Trade ought to consult the Lancashire cotton textile industry as to what quotas the colonial Governments would permit. I can imagine nothing more damaging to the Lancashire industry itself if anything of that kind were known in the Colonies. I do not believe that it can be seriously argued that that should be done.

A point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether some secret information that was given should, in fact, be known. He was referring to some secret information to the chairman of the Cotton Board, and he used the words which he took from some Press report that that was the same old trickery; that somehow it inhibited the Cotton Board from taking some action it might want to take. I hope no one in the House will press that type of argument. Surely it must be right for any Minister to be able to give confidential information to an industry on matters of this character if he thinks it right so to do. I cannot conceive that it is wrong for a Minister to do that in his discretion.

Mr. Ellis Smith: rose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, I cannot give way. Surely it would be utterly wrong to have published this information in advance. We were at that moment in negotiation with the Japanese. If we had stated these figures publicly while our negotiators were in the middle of the negotiations, surely that would have been the way to get the worst possible deal for Lancashire. The right hon. Gentleman used the expression, "I saw you coming." Well, they would certainly have seen you coming if you announced to the Japanese the best that you hoped to get.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I want the President of the Board of Trade to consider this quotation from the "Manchester Guardian":
Sir Raymond Streat emphasised that the Government did not consult the Cotton Board on its recent negotiations with Japan.
What applied to the Cotton Board applied equally to the pottery industry.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have just said that we should not have consulted them.
I now wish to turn to the question of unfair practices. Some anxiety was expressed, and not on one side of the House alone, about unfair practices, the copying of designs, and so on. Those are allegations which have been made often, and often justly made in the case of the Japanese. But there is already treaty provision in regard to this. In the Anglo-Japanese Treaty the Japanese expressed their intention—
in public and private trade and commerce to conform to internationally accepted fair practices.


That was signed by the Japanese. It is difficult to imagine anything much more specific that could be written into any other agreement. The suggestion is that they should have signed something more. What else? In addition, they are signatories of the Madrid Convention on False Indications of Origin and also of a further convention on industrial property rights. Therefore, as far as undertakings are concerned—and I emphasise that—this matter is fully safeguarded.
I believe that this is as much as hon. Members opposite could have done. When they negotiated an agreement, and were challenged at the time, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was asked to put in more and special provisions. He gave exactly the same answer as I have done, that it was quite impossible to tie it up any more closely than it was tied up at that time.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Now they are attacking trades unions.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It seems to me that my hon. and right hon. Friends who have put down the Amendment have exactly met this situation. They wish to be certain that the undertakings which have been signed will be honoured in practice. They are entitled to ask that. They wish us to keep the situation under control. They wish to see that if these treaty obligations are broken, Lancashire will not be at the mercy of Japanese competition and that some action can be taken.
Clearly there is a limit to what a Government can do in those circumstances, but I give the assurance that we shall watch the situation. If we find that those treaty obligations are broken before 1955—and this arrangement lasts only for one year—it is entirely in our own hands, so far as the United Kingdom market is concerned, to take adequate steps then. In the case of the colonial Governments, it is up to them. They are masters of the situation, but I have no doubt that they would consider taking comparable action.
The Colonies, I repeat, are masters of their own fate in these matters. They decide, and not us, what are the appropriate quotas for them to allow. The

total estimate for the Colonies is £91 million but £66 million of that relates to the entrepôt countries, and I imagine that there is no one who would not suggest that if the Japanese are going to sell textiles to China they might just as well sell them through Hong Kong. It is a perfectly legitimate and proper trade.
As my hon Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) said in a very powerful and forceful speech, £25 million of the rest of the £91 million; go to the non-entrepôt Colonies. That, represents an increase of £7,500,000 on all goods. If we take 60 per cent, as the textiles proportion, say, £4 million or £5 million, that represents 50 million or 60 million yards of cloth. Will Lancashire lose all that? What about the Indians and the Europeans? They are all selling in that market. They are all just as liable to Japanese competition, and indeed, in the case of the Indians, they happen to be the ones who have gained trade from the quota restrictions imposed on the Japanese, and they are more likely to lose than anybody else. So I say that the 50 million or 60 million yards which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East mentioned as an outside maximum is probably an accurate figure.
The United Kingdom is taking £3 million worth of grey cloth, which is welcomed by one half of Lancashire, and everybody in the House knows it. It is grey cloth which if it were not taken here would be taken by some other country and finished there. So far as the rest is concerned, minute quotas have been allowed in a number of cases where not a single Japanese article was allowed to cross the frontiers of this country. Does anyone suggest that against a background of a deficit of £100 million one could really justify, on balance of payments grounds, keeping a complete ban on the import of any single one of those articles? I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side of the House would be prepared to justify that in argument. So in fact we have allowed—and we have complete control over the situation—very limited imports of these goods.
This is not free trade. This is not a return to Adam Smith. It is a deliberate decision to choose an expansionist rather than a restrictionist policy. That is the choice which we faced. We took


this course in the interest of this country and of the Commonwealth. We took the path of courage. It has paid us in the past and I believe that it will reward us again on this occasion.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 296.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mellish, R. J.


Albu, A. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Messer, Sir F.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Gibson, C. W.
Mikardo, Ian


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Glanville, James
Mitchison, G. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Gooch, E. G.
Monshw, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.


Baird, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Balfour, A.
Grey, C. F.
Morley, R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bartley, P.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mort, D. L.


Bence, C. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mulley, F. W.


Benson, G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Murray, J. D.


Beswick, F.
Hannan, W.
Nally, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hardy, E. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Blackburn, F.
Hargreaves, A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Harrison, J (Nottingham, E.)
O'Brien, T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hastings, S.
Oldfield, W. H.


Bowden, H. W.
Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Orbach, M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oswald, T.


Brockway, A. F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Padley, W. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Paget, R. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Holmes, Horace
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Houghton, Douglas
Palmer, A. M. F.


Burke, W. A.
Hoy, J. H.
Pannell, Charles


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pargiter, G. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.


Carmichael, J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Porter, G.


Clunie, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Collick, P. H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pryde, D. J.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rankin, John


Crosland, C. A. R.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reeves, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Dames, P.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Richards, R.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Peer, G.
Leo, Frederick (Newton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Dodds, N. N.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Short, E. W.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edelman, M.
Logan, D. G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McGovern, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McInnes, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Snow, J. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fienburgh, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sparks, J. A.


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, T.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham E.)


Follick, M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Foot, M. M.
Manuel, A. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Forman, J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mayhew, C. P.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.




Swingler, S. T.
Viant, S. P.
Willey, F. T.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Weitzman, D.
Williams, W. H. (Droylsden)


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thornton, George (Dundee, E.)
West, D. G.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Thornton, E.
Wheeldon, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Timmons, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Wyatt, W. L.


Tomney, F.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Yates, V. F.


Turner-Samuels, M.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wigg, George



Usborne, H. C.
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Arthur Allen.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchinson, James (Scotstoun)


Alport, C. J. M.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B H.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Iremonger, T. L.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Drayson, G. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jennings, Sir Roland


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Baker, P. A. D.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Erroll, F. J.
Kaberry, D.


Banks, Col. C.
Fell, A.
Kerr, H. W.


Barber, Anthony
Finlay, Graeme
Lambert, Hon. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount


Baxter, A. B.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)
Leather, E. H. C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fort, R.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lindsay, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Llewellyn, D. T.


Birch, Nigel
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Black, C. W.
Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bowen, E. R.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Longden, Gilbert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Glover, D.
Low, A. R. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Godber, J. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Braine, B. R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gower, H. R.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Graham, Sir Fergus
McAdden, S. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
McCallum, Major D.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimond, J.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bullard, D. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKibbin, A. J.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harden, J. R. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hare, Hon. J. A.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Carr, Robert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)


Channon, H.
Hay, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Heath, Edward
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cole, Norman
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Colegate, W. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, A. E.


Conant, Maj. R J. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hollis, M. C.
Maudling, R.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Holt, A. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hope, Lord John
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Crouch, R. F.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Mellor, Sir John


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Molson, A. H. E.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horobin, I. M.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Cuthbert, W. N.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Moore, Sir Thomas


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Deedes, W. F.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Neave, Airey


Digby, S. Wingfield
Hurd, A. R.
Nicholls, Harmar







Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Robson-Brown, W.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Oakshott, H. D.
Russell, R. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Odey, G. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Turton, R. H.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Scott, R. Donald
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Shepherd, William
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Osborne, C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vesper, D. F.


Page, R. G.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wade, D. W.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire W.)


Perkins, Sir Robert
Snadden, W. McN.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Soames, Capt. C.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Pitman, I. J.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Watkinson. H. A.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stevens, G. P.
Wellwood, W.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Steward, W. A (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Profumo, J. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Storey, S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wills, G.


Redmayne, M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Studholme, H. G.
York, C.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold



Renton, D. L. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Teeling, W.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Sir Cedric Drewe.


Robertson, Sir David
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Question put, "That the proposed words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 258.

Division No. 33.]
AYES
[10.1 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Carr, Robert
Fort, R.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Alport, C. J. M.
Channon, H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Arbuthnot, John
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Gammans, L. D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cole, Norman
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Colegate, W. A.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Baker, P. A. D.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Glover, D.


Baldock, Rt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Godber, J. B.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Banks, Col. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Cough, C. F. H.


Barber, Anthony
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gower, H. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baxter, A. B.
Crouch, R. F.
Gridley, Si Arnold


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley).
Grimond, J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harden, J. R. E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Hare, Hon. J. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bishop, F. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Black, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hay, John


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bowen, E. R.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heath, Edward


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon J. A.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Braine, B. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Duthie, W. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooman-White, R. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Erroll, F. J.
Hollis, M. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T.
Fell, A.
Holt, A. F.


Bullard, D. G.
Finlay, Graeme
Hope, Lord John


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Burden, F. F. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)
Horobin, I. M.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Campbell, Sir David
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)




Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Scott, R. Donald


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Maude, Angus
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Maudling, R.
Shepherd, William


Hurd, A. R.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Mellor, Sir John
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Soames, Capt. C.


Iremonger, T. L.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Spearman, A. C. M.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Speir, R. M.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Neave, Airey
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stevens, G. P.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Kerr, H. W.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Storey, S.


Lambton, Viscount
Nugent, G. R. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Oakshott, H. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Leather, E. H. C.
Odey, G. W.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles, (Eastbourne)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Teeling, W.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lindsay, Martin
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thomas, Leslie Canterbury)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Orr-Ewing Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare
Thomas, P. J. M (Conway)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Page, R. G.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Perkins, Sir Robert
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Longden, Gilbert
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Low, A. R. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Turton, R. H.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Pitman, I. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


McAdden, S. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wade, D. W.


McCallum, Major D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Raikes, Sir Victor
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Rayner, Brig. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


McKibbin, A. J.
Redmayne, M
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Remnant, Hon. P.
Watkinson, H. A.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Renton, D. L. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Wellwood, W.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wills, G.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Russell, R. S.
York, C.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.



Marples, A. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Studholme.




NOES


Adams, Richard
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Delargy, H. J.


Albu, A. H.
Burke, W. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Awbery, S. S.
Callaghan, L. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Carmichael, J.
Edelman, M.


Baird, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Balfour, A.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Chapman, W. D.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Bartley, P.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Clunie, J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bence, C. R.
Coldrick, W.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Benson, G.
Collick, P. H.
Fernyhough, E.


Beswick, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fienburgh, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cove, W. G.
Finch, H. J.


Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Blyton, W. R.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Follick, M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Daines, P.
Foot, M. M.


Bowden, H. W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Forman, J. C.


Bowles, F. G.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Freeman, John (Watford)


Brockway, A. F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gibson, C. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Deer, G.
Glanville, James







Gooch, E. G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. Huddersfield, E.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Manuel, A. C.
Skeffington, A. M.


Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Mason Roy
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Griffiths Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, C. P.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Griffiths William (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Messer, Sir F.
Snow, J. W.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.
Steele, T.


Hargreaves, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. D. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morley, R.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mort, D. L.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moyle, A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Harbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.
Swingler, S. T.


Hobson, C. R.
Murray, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Holman, P.
Nally, W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Holmes, Horace
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hoy, J. H.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hubbard, T. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) 
Orbach, M.
Thomas Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesy)
Oswald, T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Padley, W. E.
Thornton, E.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Timmons, J.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Tomney, F.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Janner, B.
Pannell, Charles
Usborne, H. C.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pargitar, G. A.
Viant, S. P.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Parker, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Parkin, B. T.
Warbey, W. N.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pearson, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Peart, T. F.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Weitzman, D.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Popplewell, E.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Porter, G.
West, D. G.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Keenan, W.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


King, Dr. H. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wigg, George


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reeves, J.
Willey, F. T.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, David (Neath)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Lewis, Arthur
Richards, R.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lindgren, G. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St Fancras, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


MacColl, J. E.
Rogers, George (Kennington, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


McGhee, H. G.
Ross, William
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


McGovern, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McInnes, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wyatt, W. L.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Short, E. W.
Yates, V. F.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)



MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House acknowledges the sense of responsibility to the nation and to the Colonies which Her Majesty's Government has

shown and its impartiality in taking this decision, and, whilst recognising that advantages will accrue to the trade of the Empire, urges Her Majesty's Government that any further arrangements should provide such safeguards of the interests of the textile industry as the experience of the coming year may show to be necessary.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL NAVY COMMISSIONS (PERSONAL CASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.24 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: The matter which I wish to raise this evening with the Admiralty concerns a young man from my constituency, Mr. Gerald Popple. He is identified in the Navy as "G. B. Popple, A/E A.4 D/MX923737, and I sincerely hope that from that definition the Minister will be able to identify this young man.
In August, 1953,I was asked to inquire why this very promising young man was rejected for commissioned rank despite his very high technical and professional qualification. The person who raised the case with me expressed the opinion that after a careful study of the details I might come to the conclusion, already reached by others, that here was a glaring example of class distinction in its most snobbish form.
Having been connected for many years with promotion boards and appeals boards in the Post Office, I can fully appreciate how difficult it is to assess relative merit to the satisfaction of all the candidates and parties concerned. I have, therefore, approached this case with caution and reserve, but I confess that the more I read and hear about it the more disturbed and dissatisfied I am at the decision of the selection board. I have been in correspondence with the First Lord of the Admiralty, but, unfortunately, he sees no reason why the decision of the final selection board should be varied.
There certainly seems to be a prima jadecase for further inquiry. I am satisfied—as are many others—that an injustice has been done to this lad, which could have been avoided if there had been an avenue of appeal to a higher naval authority. Had there been such an avenue of appeal—an appeals machinery or a tribunal—I should not have raised the matter, because I am a firm believer in people making use of all the machinery provided for them. But there is no machinery; at least, that is the information conveyed to me by the First Lord

in reply to Questions I put to him late last year.
I have not time to deal at great length with all the qualities and qualifications of this youth, and I am not sure that it is necessary to do so, because the Admiralty do not seem to dispute his technical and professional skill. I want to give the House a brief outline of the background of this case, which makes it so necessary to have an inquiry into this matter. Gerald Popple was one of the boys who took notice of the Royal Navy posters. There are thousands of these to be seen on hoardings, saying, "Join the Royal Navy," "Make the Royal Navy your career," and so on. This boy took those posters very much to heart and decided that, after leaving school, he would make the Royal Navy his career.
Strangely enough, not only was the boy fired with this ambition to become an officer in the Royal Navy, but his father and mother also adopted the same line. They were most keen for him to do so, and they were prepared to sacrifice many things in their own home and their own lives to make it possible for him to follow this course of action. In June, 1952, he joined the R.N.V.R., and studied part-time at day and night school classes in order to pass the required technical and professional examinations which would equip him to become an officer in the electrical branch of the Royal Navy. I would remind the House that we are talking about the electrical branch of the Navy and not about the physical training department. I assume that in the electrical branch a good deal of technical skill and knowledge are required.
As a result of those studies, early in 1953 he became a graduate member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, which, I think, was a pretty good achievement, bearing in mind the time available to him for his studies. This status made him eligible for a commission in the R.N.V.R. He did not then take a commission in the R.N.V.R. because he wanted to continue his studies. He did so, and passed with merit examinations set by the City and Guilds of London and examinations set by the technical colleges of Ashton-under-Lyne and Old-ham; and from my personal knowledge of the area I can say that both are excellent and well-known technical colleges in that part of Lancashire.


He was called up and entered the Royal Navy as an electrical artificer. We all agree that at this point here was excellent material available on entry; even if he had no more training at all, he was excellent material on entry into the Service. Not only that, but he seems to have done very well after joining the Navy, because on 14th April—a matter of two or three months later—he was instructed to attend a pre-selection Admiralty interview board with a view to undergoing training for commissioned rank. This first board was composed of senior naval officers. I ascertained that fact from the First Lord of the Admiralty by Question and answer. Clearly, these were men of experience in the Navy. They recommended that he should undergo an eight weeks' initial officers training course at H.M.S. "Collingwood." Two other ratings were also recommended at the same time.
During the eight weeks' course this boy Poppleseems to have done exceedingly well in his technical and electrical courses. There were two intermediate tests before they came to the final test. One was on electrics and electronics, for which he got 84 per cent. and was at the top of the list. In the next, on high and low power, he got 79 per cent. and was again at the top of the list. In the final test, which was the aggregate of them all, he was only 0·5 per cent. below the top.
On completion of this course he went before the final selection board, which, as I understand the situation, seems to have consisted of rather less senior and perhaps less experienced officers. I gather from the information which has been given to me that in the main this board was concerned with what sporting proclivities the candidate had. Those of us who were in the Army in the 1914–18 War, and possibly those who were in the Army in the Second World War—I was in the first, from 1914, but I was not in the second—know that those who were able to play football or any other game soon discovered that they were selected for various appointments.
This board was a sporting board. One member suggested to the boy Popple that perhaps, after all, he was more of a studious type than of a sporting type. I do not know what was the purpose of that question. One is tempted to ask whether the Navy does not want brain

as well as brawn. When we are dealing with the electrical branch of the Navy, I should think that at least there should be a place in the consideration of things for somebody with brains as well as somebody with brawn.
This interview lasted exactly 10 minutes. According to a letter which I received from the First Lord of the Admiralty,
The final selection board formed the opinion that although his technical knowledge is of a high standard, he lacked the personal characteristics which are essential in any naval officer.
I have known many naval officers, past and present, and I cannot say that I know of any particular type or personal characteristics. I do not know what the First Lord or the selection board had in mind when using that phrase. But the phrase used afterwards to Popple himself by the officer in charge was that he had failed because he lacked personality, quality of command, and leadership. That is the issue, as I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree. Therefore, if I can prove to his satisfaction that this man, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, was not lacking in these qualities, I assume that it will be the subject of a further inquiry after this debate.
Before starting the officers' training course at H.M.S. "Collingwood," Gerald Popple, as senior rating, of petty officer status, had to drill and instruct other new entry ratings in elementary seamanship and parade ground work. My information is that he performed his duties to the complete satisfaction of the permanent instructors in the area, who thought that he possessed good powers of command and control. They thought he would do well as an officer and were most surprised when he was rejected.
The second course was in September, 1953. A week or two after he was rejected by the selection board, he was drafted to the Royal Navy Petty Officers' School. At the end of this course, his report showed—that he lacked leadership, command, and expression? Not at all. On the contrary, he was declared "good" in all three requirements. I am given to understand that that in itself is rather unusual on this strict course. He was competing against Regular petty officers, some of whom had 12 years' service, and yet he seems to have excelled even in this company.


I am almost afraid of using my third piece of information, because as things have turned out, it seems to be a message from another world. I said that the father and the mother had joined with this boy in his ambition. They had sacrificed their own comfort and many of the things that working-class people would like to get, in the interests of the progress and development of this boy. But the father died just after Christmas, and he is no longer here to take that interest which he took in the future and in the affairs of his son. Although I have hesitated a good deal before using the words that he used to the First Lord of the Admiralty, I think I should be disloyal to that still silent voice that has come to me if I did not do so.
This is what the father wrote on 28th September to the First Lord of the Admiralty:
With regard to his personality, I have spent a few days at Fareham…
Fareham is a long way from Droylsden, possibly 230 miles, but this man came all the way from Droylsden, in Lancashire, to Fareham, paying his own fare, accommodation and out-of-pocket expenditure, inquiring into this question. He had held conversations with all ranks who had been in close contact with his son during his course at "Collingwood." He said:
I was assured that his personality, bearing, cleanliness and smartness were beyond question. These people when informed by my son that he had been turned down on the grounds of insufficient personality were as equally astonished as I was. Had my son failed on a technical point I would have been satisfied, but on personality grounds it is very worrying—knowing as we do that it is of the very highest.
He concludes his letter:
The disappointment of my wife and myself is beyond all words. To see the whole of our life's work to give our son the opportunity to pursue the technical career he had embarked upon, and its ultimate aim achieved, which he wanted to attain by his own efforts, refused because we had not been able to send him to a public school in order to acquire this personality which seems to be so much more essential than technical ability in this modern age.
I am sorry that I have taken longer than I had intended, but my appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to have this case re-examined to see whether, in the light of this evidence which I have sought, in a very imperfect way, to put before the House tonight, it is possible to crown this lad's honest endeavour and

ambition with the honour he has so amply justified.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that at the selection board there were two other ratings along with this boy. Could he tell us what happened to them?

Mr. Williams: Yes, both of them were selected.

Mr. Nicholls: Does that not disprove the suggestion of snobbishness?

Mr. Williams: If I knew the origin and the background of the other two, it would be very much easier to answer that question.

10.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) for the moderate way in which he has raised this matter, because it is quite obviously a subject on which he feels deeply,and I should like at once to say how sorry I am to hear of the death of the young man's father. I had not heard of it before, and I am sure that the House would extend its sympathy to the family.
I am very glad that I have the opportunity of replying to the points raised by the hon. Member, because it is obviously very much easier to do so in a debate like this rather than by Question and answer at Question time. I hope I shall be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the House, that nothing unusual has, in fact, happened in this case.
This National Service man's technical qualifications were, as the hon. Member says, formidable. The hon. Member quoted some of them. This boy had obtained the full Technological Certificate of the City and Guilds of London Institute in Electrical Engineering Practice, and he had a National Certificate, with endorsements, for Electrical Engineering. These qualifications automatically brought him before this interviewing board for consideration as to whether he should have pre-selection officer training.
As the hon. Member said, this board consisted of more senior officers than the second board. That was because the tasks of the first board are looked upon as being more difficult than the tasks of


the second. They have got to interview boys and young men direct from civil life and the Navy has had no experience of their officer-like qualities and potential. That board just passed this young man. He was the bottom of the three and the lowest mark of the day. So I think that one may say that the board gave him the benefit of the doubt, because he did not do very well. At the same time, of course, I would not for one moment say that his technical qualities were not extremely high. He then went off and did this two months' course, and, again, he did well in his technical subjects, but my information was he was below those in his group and below the average in what are called personnel selection tests and other tests carried out in the training establishment.
He had the second board after he had finished the course. These more junior officers had to make a choice and to recommend young men who had spent some time in the Navy; more was known about them then than when they were examined by the more senior board earlier. Once again this young man's technical qualifications were in no doubt. It is interesting to know that the president of this board had himself entered by the way that this boy was trying to do—he had been an electrical artificer himself; and one other officer on that board had gained his commission through the lower deck, so they cannot have had anything against this type of entry.
The hon. Gentleman said that they asked questions about sport. I am sure the House will realise that questions about sport, his experiences in the training establishment, his outside interests or his hobbies at home were asked to enable the board to get into general conversation with the young man. I see hon. Gentlemen nodding in agreement. Those questions often lead to the boy opening a conversation on something that really interests him. However, as a result of that interview, the board did not feel

able to recommend him as an officer and they had a considerable discussion about the young man after they had interviewed him.
In the one or two minutes left, perhaps I might differentiate between the word "personality" and the characteristics required by a naval officer. Everyone will realise that a naval officer must have considerable character and power of command and sense of responsibility, because he has to lead and inspire his men not only in Service matters but also in their personal affairs. I hope that this young man will not consider it a slur in any way that he has not come up to the high standard required by the Navy. We cannot all be officers and I am certain that his high technical qualifications will be of greater value to the Navy and the nation in his present position.
As to whether he can have another chance, the object of these National Service commissions is to pre-select young men early in their naval service. He has done over half of his. Should he want to persevere in the Navy—and I hope he will—he can either join the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve when he has finished his National Service, or he can become a Regular rating, and both those Services have their own channels for promotion to officers. I hope that if he really feels that he wants to go into the Navy he will not let this stop him at this stage.

Dr. Horace King: Will the Minister answer the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nioholls), whether the other two ratings had the same background of State education as this boy?

Commander Noble: One came from a grammar school and one from-Bancroft's School.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Eleven o'clock